The fact that I have represented defendants in RIAA cases was fully disclosed to the editors, and in fact they knew about it before they invited me to do the article. What they chose to print was their decision based on their usual format.
Yes I believe in making full disclosure.
In this case, considering the link to my blog in the bio, the very title of my blog "Recording Industry vs. The People", the fact that my blog specifically discloses the fact that I have represented defendants in RIAA cases, the very title of the article "Large Recording Companies vs. The Defenseless", and the super-sophistication of the audience -- 5000 judges who spend their entire working day every day sifting through advocacy -- I do not think the editors needed to make any fuller disclosure than they did. If you think there is a single subscriber to the Judges Journal who needed fuller disclosure than that, I think you are wrong.
Meanwhile, what I wrote was not advocacy for the 4 litigants I happen to represent who are defendants in RIAA iltigations, it was a white paper about the 'unequal access to justice' problems which the RIAA litigations have created for our profession.
If you disagree with me on a statement of fact, or an argument of law, please do so; but I wish you would stop these unjustified attacks on my integrity.
It was fully known to the editors of The Judges Journal which side I represent in Court.
They invited me to write the article based upon their knowledge of who I am and what my positions were.
They have a format for their biographical sketches and followed it.
The article was written for a super sophisticated legal audience of judges; it refers to my blog which discloses which side I represent; and the editors assumed, no doubt correctly, that there was not a single reader of The Judges Journal who would have the slightest doubt as to the side of the aisle on which I sit.