blogger interrupted

Don’t you love how small his pic is?  Kinda poetic, ain’t it.

Ohio bloggers tend to take themselves rather seriously, me among them.  And when one of us crosses ethical lines, the drama is never ending.  

Chris Geidner took himself more seriously than most.  Geidner was one of those SUMMON A BLOGGER ETHICS PANEL guys.  You can’t really find out how much so, because Geidner has purged the internet of his blog so thoroughly not even the Wayback Machine finds it.

But Chris knew how to butter his bread.  LawDork was around for 3 years, the final months of which were spent flacking Marc Dann on his blog.  It was plain to see, and it didn’t stop at his blog. It migrated to email exchanges like this.

Geidner.

Is there a non-Subodh reason why none of you have even mentioned the #1 story in Ohio politics this week?

Due to my work situation, I have not felt it proper for me to comment on the Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Dann v. Taft. I must say that I am rather dismayed, though, that you all have, it would seem, let your affection for Subodh cause you to disregard your professed long-term dedication to open government and the Democrats by ignoring this case.

I would be interested in hearing from all of you, if you’re interested in telling me, if there actually was a non-Primary reason for the lack of coverage of the case on your blogs.

Russo.

first of all, can you give us a non-Dann reason for this email?

second, regarding why i haven’t blogged about this, if you haven’t noticed, and i only speak for myself here, the inner workings of the Noe case, especially filings in state court between politicians over documents that may or may not be relevant, priveleged, or whatever, interest me not one bit.  bubkus.  zilch.  the big squadoosh. 

as for #1 Ohio political story, please.  perhaps there is a story here, but only as the residue of Marc Dann’s purely political lawsuit, which he knew would get him nothing but a headline, which he has gotten.  yay.

third, unless you represent someone in this case, or your firm does, or you have some other reason to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, may i suggest you write about it at your blog.  i don’t understand any other “work situation” that would prevent that.  i don’t write other bloggers wondering why they don’t discuss the ins and outs of Armenian electoral fraud, i just write about it.  if this case interestes you, either in some non-Dann way or a very-Dann way, then blog it.  you obviously have an opinion about it, try it on for size rather than pitching it to other bloggers.

thanks.

Geidner.

Besides the characteristically obnoxious wording in parts of Tim’s response (which is just to be expected), I do appreciate you all getting back to me.

Specifically, if you all have paid attention to the work account from which I usually write you all, my firm was special counsel to Bob Taft in the case. So, Tim, that is the “work situation” to which I refer. So, no, I won’t be writing about the case on my blog.

Me.

thanks for letting us know your firm represents Taft in the case.  it would have been best for you to tell us in your first email.

i agree with russell, this case has had Dann opportunism written all over it from day one.  you should be happy we haven’t blogged about it, because that’s the only angle that makes any sense. 

Geidner – this is the good part.

Tim, I did give the general reason why I would not be blogging on the case. There were only two parties, and I don’t think Marc would care if I blogged about my thoughts on the case had I or my firm been representing him.

Public comment by a lawyer on a decision to a case in which the associate was not involved is not disallowed by any rules of professional conduct, but I do not generally blog about any case in which my firm represents a party or any cases or decisions related to cases on which I am actively involved. I also try not to comment too much on matters with which I am directly involved as the Communications Committee chair of Equality Ohio. I also have painstakingly noted my employment for and friendship with Marc in everything I write that concerns him or the AG’s race. Those are the decisions I have made for myself about my own personal ethics of blogging.

I’m sorry that my mention of my personal ethical considerations for not commenting on this case were not explicit enough for you in the first e-mail, but I do feel they were sufficient to explain why I was asking why you all hadn’t written about something that I myself had not covered (which was the only reason I was even mentioning it).

Soon, Geidner would be displaying those ethical standards thusly….

Many of the people we interviewed described an office environment that was profane, vulgar, contemptuous and confrontational.  Displeasure with subordinates, we were told, was expressed by screaming, yelling, breaking phones and other office property, and by backing individuals up against walls and threatnening them….Other senior management officials – notably Gutierrez…Brian Laliberte and Chris Geidner, Counsel to the Attorney General, engaged in similar conduct.

Geidner loved making a big deal out of my criminal conviction, not explicitly, but just enough to leave little doubt as to what he thought of Russo.  Well, now Geidner appears in a public record describing his conduct in his professional capacity in such a way that he should have a little trouble finding a job himself.  

How’s it feel, Chris?

I’m not stupid.  I know that my conviction is political poison, and that Geidner will certainly one day weasel his way into some other politician’s good graces – snakes tend to congeal together – far more easily than I will ever get a job doing anything.  

But I think we can now dispense with the notion that my conviction makes literally anyone more qualified than me for any job – or at least dispense with those who argue that, and then end up in a public investigation for activity bordering on psychopathic.  It’s a start.

There was a lot of ink spilled in the blogosphere on something I did a long time ago to myself before I even knew what a blog was.  Somehow, I don’t think there’ll be much ink spilled on Chris Geidner.  Call me crazy. 

Or “characteristically obnoxious”.