for anytypes of games for free download log on to: http://www.gamesbasement.blogspot.com

for tech news, http://www.teckoz.blogspot.com

Of course! The question is, how on Earth have you reached the conclusion that money and legal power can’t be used to interfere? That’s so naïve that it borders on cute!

It’s unlikely that there was any real fear of two cases interfering with each other. Most likely the connection was very vague; obviously vague enough that the firm didn’t foresee the problem. That is, unless the other client created such a case specifically to create conflict. Whether they used a vague case, or created a substantial one for the purpose, this is interfering. If it’s “pertaining to money”, then we’re talking about interference through corruption; probably not in the legal sense, but certainly in the moral (and original) sense.

That’s possible, but it’s nowhere near being likely.

As for the clients not exerting pressure regarding conflict, that’s pure BS. Of course they both can, and often do, exert pressure. What clients can’t do is impose official penalties. They can, however, take their concern to the state bar association, which relies on cases being brought to them, rather than actively finding breaches. The clients can also change firms, which can cause great pressure.

In most cases where a lawyer drops a case while citing conflict of interest, the state bar has never been involved. It’s a conclusion the lawyer has drawn, often with some input from the clients.

You may have seen a pattern in the above: If it’s a fact, you can state it. It’s as simple as that.

What you can’t do is misrepresent the facts. The fact that something is the most likely logical conclusion must not be misrepresented as it being a verified fact. However, if it’s properly represented, the fact can be honestly and honourably stated.

In 30 seconds I found 5 more “conjectures” in the article. Some of them were more assertive, in that they didn’t draw as much attention to the fact that they were conjecture. Even so, without these, the article would be unreadable and irrelevant, and making them less assertive would make the article clumsy.

An example:
“MegaUpload worked with Bennett before the indictment, which means that he is already familiar with the file-hosting site”

Does it? The truth is, it’s possible that Bennett is a slouch, and haven’t read or written anything in the case. Completely possible, but also unlikely. The author wants to draw attention to a drawback to changing lawyers, and accomplishes that by simply mentioning this conjecture. Alternatively, he could have launched into a complex justification, covering all his bases and all possible interpretations and implications, or he could’ve written a separate article on it, or he could’ve not mentioned it at all. Neither of those alternatives are good. In fact, they’re all very clumsy.

You obviously dislike that attention is called to this specific “conjecture”, but you accept other conjectures all the time. In other words, whatever you’re reacting to, it’s not the fact that it’s conjecture. The most common cause for objections against conjecture is displeasure with the argument it presents.