Report: Former Head Of The Beit Din Of America The Frontrunner For Chief Rabbi Of Britain Job

In what is being called a “surprise twist,” an American, Emory University law professor Rabbi Michael Broyde, is now the frontrunner to fill the soon-to-be-vacant position of Chief Rabbi of Great Britain.

Report: Former Head Of The Beit Din Of America The Frontrunner For Chief Rabbi Of Britain Job
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

In what is being called a “surprise twist,” an American, Emory University law professor Rabbi Michael Broyde, is now the frontrunner to fill the soon-to-be-vacant position of Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Miriam Shaviv reports for the Times of Israel.

The search committee charged with finding the replacement for the retiring Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has reportedly had a “salary discussion” with Broyde, and “the committee is focusing much of its consideration on Rabbi Broyde and no one else,” a source close to the search process told the online paper, which is also reporting that Rabbi Norman Lamm, Yeshiva University’s chancellor, called Broyde “the finest mind of his generation” in a letter to the committee endorsing Broyde for the position.

Besides his work in academia, Broyde is a dayan (judge) on the Beth Din of America, and is the founding rabbi of the Young Israel synagogue of Atlanta.

Another candidate reportedly still in contention is Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, who is the director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University and associate rabbi at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan. He interviewed for Sack’s job last month and was reportedly “being actively wooed” by “members” of the search committee.

The source the Times of Israel relied on to report Broyde’s candidacy told the Times that several search committee members found Soloveichik to be “majestic.”

The source also claimed that members of the search committee agreed that Soloveichik, “who is known for his intellect and for his interest in representing Judaism to general society,” the Times notes, is the “logical heir” to Sacks.

Soloveichik is about a decade younger than Broyde and has much less real world experience. His grasp of Jewish law is far weaker than Broyde’s, and is his understanding of history and of the interface between halakha and secular society.

Broyde, however, is much more versed in issues that confront Orthodoxy today, including conversion to Judaism, women’s rights and roles, and in practical halakhic issues.

But the major issue facing the supposedly Modern Orthodox organization that hires the chief rabbi is it’s beit din, religious court, which for decades has been under the control of haredi judges who rule strictly. The beit din and those judges are widely despised by British Jews, many of whom are not Orthodox but who are, nonetheless, members of Modern Orthodox synagogues.

Soloveichik lacks the background and the experience to stand up to the haredi judges, and there is a very real fear that he will simply be forced to cede halakhic issues to them as Sacks did.

Broyde, on the other hand, has the experience and the knowledge to stand up to them if he so desires. He reportedly told the search committee that he wants to take control of the beit din, and will lead it in deciding hot button issues related to conversion and women’s rights.

He also reportedly will not take the job unless the United Synagogue’s board backs his plan to wrest control of its beit din from the haredim.

Some search committee members are reportedly worried that Broyde’s plan will destroy the United Synagogue by keeping its chief rabbi in an eternal battle with the haredi judges.

Broyde reportedly urged the search committee to hire Soloveichik. “This only makes them want [Broyde] more,” the source told the Times of Israel.

As well as Broyde and Soloveichik, there are two local candidates for chief rabbi, as well as one more American, Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt of the Riverdale Jewish Center in New York, who is scheduled to interview at the end of the month.

Sacks retires in September 2013. His successor is scheduled to be announced before the end of this year.

Comments

[Dave]

Is he Haredi?

[Dovid]

FailedMessiah has reported much myth and fantasy about this topic. I would take this with a big pinch of salt.

(BTW,Shmarya, if you want your self-written pieces to be taken up anywhere else, I would suggest a more thorough proof-reading).

[Chicago Sam]

He would be a great choice.

[Sabine]

//He also reportedly will not take the job unless the United Synagogue’s board backs his plan to wrest control of its beit din from the haredim.//

So this is the plan?

[Hal]

You have to wonder how well the Americans will fit in over there.

[S.]

"You have to wonder how well the Americans will fit in over there."

Only since WWII have British CRs been British born.

[Garnel Ironheart]

I've met Meir Soloveitchik. He's highly intelligent and confident. He also inherited the family's brain genes which means he's more than capable of intellectually wrestling with his Chareid judges.

[Jake]

Either one would be a great choice.

Too bad neither of them could be chief Ortodox rabbi of America.

[Sarek]

How can an American become chief rabbi of Britain?

2nd question: does anybody really care who becomes chief rabbi of Britain? (Certainly nobody in the U.S. would care.)

[Bob Abooey]

Shmarya, drop dead

[Abracadabra]

ANNOUNCING The First Unofficial Failed Messiah Get Together
THIS SUNDAY, July 12th

A bunch of us commenters on Failed Messiah are getting together this Sunday, July 12th, for an evening of live, face-to-face conversation, discussions and just some good ol' shmoozing. Come and chat with some of the regulars and meet like minded people.

If you are interested in attending, send an email ASAP to either APC: ahpeechorus@gmail.com or to Abracadabra: zehtov2@yahoo.com

You MUST include in the email your Failed Messiah screenname and email address you use for posting comments. Once we verify that they match up, we will send you the time and place of our gathering which will be in the greater NY/NJ Metropolitan Area.

Trolls Be Warned: We will have a bouncer at the door who means business, as well as the 3rd Billy Goat Gruff, and trolls will not be tolerated.

The Small Print: This event is not endorsed or sponsored by Failed Messiah, and Shmarya will not be attending.

[Talmud hagun]

"Widely despised"? - wide off the mark as usual. Whilst "universally beloved" would admittedly be pushing it a tad, despised is too strong. The bet din is grudgingly respected for its integrity, and generally quite warm and personable approach.
having read many of Broydes articles and chiddushey torah, thand having heard him lecture though certainly no slouch he will be hard pressed to give these Dayanim the runaround. The accepted norm since the Second World War, which has seen Chief Rabbis ranging from the largely ignorant (no names!) To the erudite, has always Bern to adopt a largely hands-off attitude towards the Bet Din.
Broyde would ignore this at his peril

[jim]

There are three times as many jews in New England than in old England. Is this really an important position?

[chareidi]

Sorry FM. They would be a terrible choice for you. Broyde is cordial to Chabad in Georgia and Rabbi Soloveitchik actually was educated in a Chabad elementary school. And biggest crime of all, they believe in G-d. So they shouldn't be fit for office...

[Yochanan Lavie]

Abra: I need to postpone the event till September, unless you guys want to go ahead without me. I have important family business.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Just checked my email. Let me know how it goes.

[Fleishike Kishke]

July 12 or August 12?

regarding new English rabbi, anyone but the arrogant thuggish Chabadnik. I couldn't bear seeing his face and opinions in the paper anymore than it is already.

[Brian]

How can an American become chief rabbi of Britain?

2nd question: does anybody really care who becomes chief rabbi of Britain? (Certainly nobody in the U.S. would care.)

You are very, very wrong. Sacks is revered in MO communities throughout the New York, precisely because he's the Chief Rabbi.

It's a bit like the Queen- given that the US no longer has a Chief Rabbi, Americans are mesmerized by the existence of a Chief Rabbi in the UK.

[Dave]

Abra: I need to postpone the event till September, unless you guys want to go ahead without me. I have important family business.

Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | August 08, 2012 at 04:01 PM

They may need you for a minyan.

:)

[Dave]

Rabbi Broyde came and gave a drasha at our (MO) synagogue on a Shabbat morning a few months ago. He seems a very reasonable guy, which means he'll have a tough fight with the Chareidim if he is selected. Still, I hope he wins.

[Fleishike Kishke]

Why will there be orderly retirement of the old chief rabbi and the hiring of a new one? We have clear guidance from the two true chief Rebbes, Light of the World #1 and Light of the World #2, Tzadik Doyryny and Moshiach Dorenu, on how to go about ascension issues. Doesn't Chief Lord of the Socks have two sons to duke it out? Wouldn't he rather allow confusion to reign? The great Rebbes examples were how we should do things for all times. Tru-TV (True Torah Values) opposes Orderly Ascension.

[Darth Zeidah]

Is he Haredi?

Better still, is he Jewish?

[Darth Zeidah]

A bunch of us commenters on Failed Messiah are getting together this Sunday, July 12th, for an evening of live, face-to-face conversation, discussions and just some good ol' shmoozing. Come and chat with some of the regulars and meet like minded people.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, guys, but Sunday, July 12th is long behind us.

Never mind, be'ezrat HaShem it will come round again in approximately 11 months' time.

[Abracadabra]

CORRECTION – AUGUST 12th – The First Unofficial Failed Messiah Get Together will be this Sunday AUGUST 12th (and NOT July 12th).

[Yis]

Rabbi Broyde may be more "modern" or "left wing" than most candidates for the position. However, I do want to say that my experience with him indicates that he is a pompous, dishonest man. Rabbi Broyde is a lawyer who is a supposed expert on the interplay between Halacha and being a lawyer. He in fact wrote a book entitled "The Pursuit of Justice and Jewish Law: Halachic Perspectives on the Legal Profession." The book is a generally straightforward compendium of issues (like swearing to tell the truth, being asked to draft a will which does not comport with halacha), which were dealt with before in halachic journals. However, anybody who has spent any time in law school or dealing with lawyers, and knows halacha, will immediately realize that any significant commentary on the issue must deal with the fact that the Jewish religion simply does not believe in an adversarial legal system (one run by the litigants and/or the lawyers, not the judges), and the constant pressure on lawyers to twist and shade and distort the truth under their legal obligation to "zealously advocate" for their clients' interests. Broyde, however, does not have a chapter on this central issue, which could give good reason for prohibiting Orthodox Jews from going to law school (or at least becoming litigators, since exaggeration in economic bargaining is allowed to a limited extend in halacha and MAYBE that should be extended to transactional lawyers drawing up contracts). Broyde, of course, is employed by a law school. So what does Broyde give us on this central issue? A lie and a bad footnote. Page 70: "the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers . . . prohibits the presentation of evidence designed to mislead the jury, judge, and other litigants." No, actually, it doesn't. Broyde's citation for his lie? Moral Code of Professional Responsibility DR7-102(A)(4). Here's what that actually says a lawyer may not "Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence". In fact, in year one of law school we learn of situations where a lawyer is REQUIRED to mislead a judge or jury where an argument can be presented without being explicitly false, where the judge or jury lacks information to understand why they are being misled. (For example, if a broken watch is found on the scene of the crime giving the criminal a false alibi, the lawyer is obligated to show that in court to defend his client, and it is up to the other side to figure out that the watch is broken... if they don't, justice may not be served, but the adversary system worked its magic...). I saw Broyde speak at a shul I used to go to and I brought this up to him. He started mumbling something about Jewish sources making a distinction between making legal arguments one doesn't subjectively believe (allowed according to Broyde) and making factual arguments one doesn't subjectively believe. When I brought up to him the obvious fact that lawyers zealously advocating for their clients make factual arguments they don't believe all the time, he mumbled some more sources. A very learned friend of mine looked up his mumbled sources and told me there was nothing relevant there. Also, when I asked Rabbi Broyde why he required that Toanim for the Bais Din of America had to be accredited American lawyers, he said it was because they had to follow a moral code, namely that wonder code of professional responsibility. When I asked him, don't rabbis have to follow a code too, the Torah, he responded - and I am not joking, "Toanim are scummy." When I asked him, don't you think American lawyers have quite a reputation for being scummy too, he got mad and that was the end of the conversation.... He struck me as illogical, self-interested, and almost juvenile with his temper. I don't think he'd be a very good candidate for chief rabbi of anything. Just my two cents.

[Marvin]

Just my two cents.

Posted by: Yis | August 08, 2012 at 07:37 PM

Spend a couple more pennies and repost, breaking it up into paragraphs.

[The Anti-Schmendrick]

The London Beis Din is respected throughout the world. Rav Sacks is far to the left of the beis din as well but he left it alone.

Best choice for Chief Rabbi? A native English speaking version of Rav Lau shlit"a - charedi to the core but not fanatic in imposing his beliefs on others.

Worst choice for Chief Rabbi? Just about all of the candidates presently being considered.

[Sarek]

It's a bit like the Queen- given that the US no longer has a Chief Rabbi

Did the US ever have a chief rabbi? Not to my knowledge. But if it did, the position probably disappeared because everyone here told him, "who died and made you God?"

Sacks is revered in MO communities throughout the New York, precisely because he's the Chief Rabbi.
Well, if true, that's MO only, and New York metro only. Seems to prove my point that few in the US care.

[schneur]

The British chief rabbinate's importance is far over rated.
The United Synagouge is losing members both to the Charedim and the Liberal/Reform branches. And this is proven by recent marriage reords made publci in the UK.
I doubt very much some one as bright as MB will accept this job. Perhaps he will waitt to get the call from YU .
MS is a different story but he has never even been a rabbi in a shul as his present position is an assistant rabbi.
I think at th end of the day what the United Synagogue wants and needs is not an intellectual super star or an ambitious sintellectual super star but a good intellegent rabbi who has dealt with English reality and balebatim. These men exist in the uK and may I add that I think the eventual choice will be Rabbi Warren Goldstein the incumbent chief rabbi of South Africa.
Finally since when is the london Beth Din an international body important in Hlachic considerations? Can anyone out there name evn 1 present dayan on it ?
Of course it carries power in the UK, mostly in matters of divorce , marriage conversions, and kashruth rather than public policy. I very much doubt that Prof Broyde desires to get involved in the smaller issues of divorce kashruth etc . He is more intereste dint he big picture and i think the uS is the playing field not london.
In London halachic power comes form the Halachic authorities of the Union of Orthodox COngs and its MDA Rav Padwa. Since the Unite Syn. dayanim are also charedim de facto Rav Padwa and his aides set policy for the United Syn Beth Din as well.And I doubt if R. Padwa is going to be impressed by Rabbi Broyde or even the Soloveitchik name.
Finally I also think readers need to relaize that for both men name dint he article it is good PR that they are being considered as chief rabbi whethe rits true or not . It will help their real careers in the uS.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

"in year one of law school we learn of situations where a lawyer is REQUIRED to mislead a judge or jury where an argument can be presented without being explicitly false, where the judge or jury lacks information to understand why they are being misled."

Yis, what the hell law school class is this? Dershowitz on legal ethics? Rubashkin defense team on failed tactics? Look up the concept of material omission. Or spoilation, duties to disclose evidence, etc.

And I can absolutely promise you that a judge who thinks you hid the ball will have you and your client for lunch.

[Yis]

The broken watch example is standard 1L stuff. And there are judges who would have you for lunch if they learned you did NOT zealously advocate for your client with a true but misleading argument... Show me a source that the lawyer is committing some wrongful "material omission" with the broken watch example... And even though there is some controversy about that example (to my knowledge with most experts still saying the lawyer is obligated to make the argument), there is no controversy that the adversary legal system and the duty to zealously advocate for one's client forces litigators to CONSTANTLY argue things they do not subjectively believe, even if they aren't as obviously misleading as the watch example. And it is downright incredible that Rabbi Broyde, supposedly the leading expert on the interplay between Halacha and the American legal system, does not deal with that problem at all and just put a flat out lie in his book to whisk it away. And by the way, I don't like Dershowitz or Rubashkin, but many (OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony) who were probably guilty got away with things because their lawyers zealously advocated for them and twisted the truth... as their lawyers were, unquestionably, obligated to do under our system to a point. The only grey area is "to what point"? Now go read my quote from Broyde's book again and see why I think he is so dishonest...

[Yis]

Put more simply, Eli, find me any link to show that a lawyer may not make a true statement containing a material omission in zealously advocating for his client.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yis,

first, transition from 1L to first-year practitioner. spend a little time in any complex case and you'll see how judges have no tolerance for lawyers who engage in that sort of conduct. you risk getting tossed out of court and reported to the bar.

second, here you go:
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal.html

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward The Tribunal
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

And since we're talking about the UK, here's the same obligation from the new code of conduct for solicitors in England and Wales:

http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

2.5 You have obligations not only to clients but also to the court and to third parties with whom you have dealings on your clients' behalf - see, e.g., Chapter 5 (Your client and the court) and Chapter 11 (Relations with third parties) of the Code.

You must achieve these outcomes:

O(5.1)you do not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;

O(5.2)you are not complicit in another person deceiving or misleading the court;

O(5.5)where relevant, clients are informed of the circumstances in which your duties to the court outweigh your obligations to your client;

O(5.6)you comply with your duties to the court;

O(5.7)you ensure that evidence relating to sensitive issues is not misused;

Indicative behaviours
Acting in the following way(s) may tend to show that you have achieved these outcomes and therefore complied with the Principles:

IB(5.4)immediately informing the court, with your client's consent, if during the course of proceedings you become aware that you have inadvertently misled the court, or ceasing to act if the client does not consent to you informing the court;

IB(5.5)refusing to continue acting for a client if you become aware they have committed perjury or misled the court, or attempted to mislead the court, in any material matter unless the client agrees to disclose the truth to the court;

Note: If you are a litigator or an advocate there may be occasions when your obligation to act in the best interests of a client may conflict with your duty to the court. In such situations you may need to consider whether the public interest is best served by the proper administration of justice and should take precedence over the interests of your client.

[Yis]

Jeff - I'm not trying to be mean here, you seem sincere (against scummy lawyers, I guess), and it doesn't appear that you are trying to defend Rabbi Broyde. But you don't seem to know what you are talking about regarding the VERY basic conflict between "zealous adocacy" and truth-telling and you appear to be confused as to what my post was about. You wrote "transition from 1L to first-year practitioner. spend a little time in any complex case and you'll see how judges have no tolerance for lawyers who engage in that sort of conduct". Jeff, I went to a top 10 law school and I've been dealing with litigation in some form or other for 20 years. And let me tell you - judges are individuals. Some get angry when they feel they've been misled. Others get angry when they feel that lawyers are not doing their duty to zealously advocate for their clients. I have dealt mostly with appeals work, and I have seen appeals courts blow their tops at assigned lawyers who aren't presenting every possible argument on behalf of criminal defendants or parents whose kids are being taken away, even when they have very weak cases, and the lawyers will obviously have to argue things they don't subjectively believe and which almost surely will lose because no one else will believe them either. But there is still a requirement for "zealous advocacy". I have also seen transcripts on the trial level where lawyers get criticized by judges for not zealously advocating for their clients, including in non-assigned counsel cases. Now let's get to your "argument" (??!). You quote a different American code WHICH SAYS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING AS THE ONE I QUOTED. It says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about not misleading the judge or jury. It says the lawyer cannot make a "FALSE statement of fact or law" or present "evidence the lawyer knows to be FALSE". Saying the watch said such and such time, when it did, is NOT a false statement of fact or law. It's a misleading statement because the lawyer knows the watch was broken. To give a less extreme example, in a typical criminal case where the victim has ID'd the defendant, even if the defendant confessed to the lawyer all teary eyed at first, he can take the 5th and the lawyer can - I would say would be OBLIGATED to according to most ethics experts - try to attack the credibility of the victim by, say, pointing out other people who were nearby who looked similar. What is unreal is the way you quote the UK's VERY DIFFERENT code of legal ethics that a lawyer may not "attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court". It sounds to me like the watch would fit into those words, but the typical ID situation would not... but I don't know I'm no expert in British legal ethics. BUT NO, WE WERE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE UK!!!! We were talking about Rabbi Broyde who wrote a book about halacha and being an AMERICAN lawyer. And Rabbi Broyde LIED (I can't even imagine it was an innocent mistake on something so basic). He flat out lied. And that's the reason I posted to this thread.

[Yis]

Here's the broken watch example: http://legalethicsforum.typepad.com/blog/2006/06/peter_hennig_on.html
The author doesn't mention the watch, he just writes that the victim got mixed up about the time. As it turns out (I found my old legal ethics book) the example is the victim gave the time wrong, and the defendant admitted he committed the crime to the lawyer and theorized that the victim got mixed up because he was knocked unconscious and the defendant stole the victim's watch. To my knowledge, the opinion that the lawyer is obligated to call the defendant's friends for his alibi about where he was at the (incorrect) time the victim reported the crime still stands... If you don't understand why the conflict between this type of thing and halacha's about truth telling and courtroom behavior should be basic to any analysis of the interplay between halacha and American lawyering, then you don't understand halacha or American law...

[Yis]

On the British Legal System: "If we must hew to an adversarial system, the English system is instructive. Despite the common (adversarial) label, there are significant differences. The English trial is adversarial, but not excessively so; we [the USA] are at the extreme end of the adversarial system . . . England gives its judges more power over the proceedings, while reigning in the role and thus the power of barristers [trial attorneys] . . . After final arguments, English judges comment on and summarize the evidence for the jury . . . The barrister's primary obligation is to the court, not the client. In England, it is assumed that the merits of the case, not forensic skills or tricks, determine outcome . . . Rules of ethics restrict the responsibilities of barristers . . . " - And I'm quite certain that the prohibition on "misleading" in the British but NOT the American system reflects this too...

[Yis]

Sorry the quote was from "Reconstructing Justice: An Agenda for Trial Reform" by Professor Franklin Strier, p. 231.

[Yis]

If Rabbi Broyde is reading this thread, I'd like to see his explanation of how he did not flat out lie. And by the way, the conflict between truth-telling and halacha isn't the only side to this. It's also not at all clear whether an adversary legal system meets the Jewish definition of just courts under the sheva mitzvot b'nai noach (because according to commentaries the judges have to be learned [which jurors especially many not be] and judges have to do thorough investigations [which they may be prohibited from doing in an adversarial proceeding where lawyers are supposed to do most of the investigating/questioning]...)

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yis,

You are still wrong and getting wronger.

1. I'm not Jeff.

2. The adversarial system in England and Wales shares the same principles as the US common law system. Because both are adversarial, advocates in each owe a duty to the court independent of their duty to their client. Not so in many civil law systems, where judges make inquiries of witnesses, not lawyers, who have no obligation to disclose material facts. It has been said that the common law is a search for the truth, and in the civil law a claimant brings a claim. Sums it up well.

3. The link you provided does not prove your watch example. Read it again. The author, Henning, is one voice, not a code, and he expresses his own view. He talks about truth and honesty. He concludes that a lawyer would be dishonest to do what you suggest.

"Even if the lawyer can argue that statements were accurate in the terms described above, the lawyer has a further obligation to ensure that the representation of the client is fair both to the client and to others, including courts and opponents. Not all expressions are factual, or at least their accuracy cannot be easily measured, so that a requirement of authenticity in the lawyer's representation covers a broader array of conduct than just assertions that can be checked for their accuracy.

"The article looks at the interaction between truth and honesty in a variety of contexts, both criminal and civil, to see how the professional rules operate. For the Michigan State Bar opinion, I conclude, not very easily, that the lawyer was dishonest in calling the witnesses to testify."

He even reinforces this point in his response to a comment.

4. Did I mention that am I not Jeff?

I'm glad to hear you're not a 1L anymore. You get a B for trying, but you are still deeply wrong. I would suggest you might want to comply with your state's CLE requirements in legal ethics.

[Ben Shlomo]

The London Beth Din has veto power on candidates for the CR position, even though they are not officially part of the Search Committee, therefore MB is out.

[my two cents]

I used to be a big fan of MB but as with all, the closer you get to any rabbi, the more you see... and I saw hubris and hypocrisy and dishonesty. It was a serious disappointment. I wont have anything to do with him anymore. Not to say the Torah he represents is bad, just don't care for the shliach. But then, I could give his speech how he takes his cues from Rambam where you can even learn from goyim. SO, we learn something from everyone, and leave the rest behind.

[yis]

Eli sorry if I got you and Jeff mixed up but it is you who are "wrong and getting wronger". The Michigan state bar gave its ruling on the watch example. I have heard of no state bar declaring otherwise. A blogger's opinion something is dishonest does not change that. It is telling that you are not discussing the difference between the adversarial and inquisitorial system at all (this isn't about common law), you do not discuss the requirement of zealous advocacy at all, and you completely ignore what every American litigator knows, that arguing things they don't subjectively believe is a regular requirement of practice (even if most examples aren't as extreme as the watch example). Add to that your not dealing at all with the well known fact that our system is more adversarial than the British system (or my source), plus the stark fact that the word mislead is strangely in their code but not ours... And I won't if you are just posting bull to defend Rabbi Broyde or a sadly idealistic view of the American legal system...

[yis]

If you want me to start throwing out quotes criticizing the American legal system for not getting to the truth, or jurists and legal scholars talking about how truth must sometimes be sacrificed fir the integrity of the system and what some consider justice,I will. Or you can just keep making up your own quotes...