<div dir='auto'>Mr Hall I see no issue with you rendering a legal opinion when asked. That is after all what we pay you for.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I noted your unwillingness to pick an option on LPTV and thought your actions were exactly as they should have been.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thank you for your diligent service. Other's expert opinions do not prevent you from offering yours as part of your contracted duties.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">John Phillips<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative<br>Cell 217-412-5973</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On May 8, 2020 5:51 PM, Oliver Hall via Lnc-business <lnc-business@hq.lp.org> wrote:<br type="attribution" /><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Dear Libertarian National Committee Members:
<br>
<br>
I generally refrain from posting to this list unless it relates to LNC
<br>
legal matters, but Ms. Harlos' recent comments pertaining to me require
<br>
a response.
<br>
<br>
First, Ms. Harlos has suggested that it was improper for me to render a
<br>
legal opinion on whether the LNC bylaws permit an online convention, and
<br>
that I am "in danger of malpractice" for rendering the opinion that I
<br>
did. That is incorrect.
<br>
<br>
As counsel to the LNC, I am routinely called upon to construe contracts
<br>
and other legal instruments and to provide legal opinions about them. My
<br>
retainer agreement with the LNC expressly states that one of my duties
<br>
is to "Construe the Libertarian Party Bylaws and other governing
<br>
documents of the LNC." That is what I did here.
<br>
<br>
In addition, the legal opinion that I gave is based on a careful review
<br>
of the Bylaws, relevant provisions of Roberts Rules and other
<br>
authorities, including the written opinion of a professional
<br>
parliamentarian. My conclusion that the Bylaws do not prohibit an online
<br>
convention is consistent with the text of the Bylaws, which are silent
<br>
on the matter, and supported by the foregoing authorities. Furthermore,
<br>
my conclusion was narrowly tailored: my opinion states that such a
<br>
construction of the Bylaws is "disfavored" and should not be adopted
<br>
except in emergency circumstances. Disagreement with that conclusion
<br>
does not justify mischaracterizing it as malpractice.
<br>
<br>
I should also emphasize that I did not and would not advocate for any of
<br>
the options the LNC is considering. Instead, I reviewed each option and
<br>
identified the legal issues and risks that each one raises. That is what
<br>
the LNC retained me to do, and I have been doing it in multiple contexts
<br>
for nearly five years. I represent the entire LNC. As such, I have a
<br>
duty of loyalty to the LNC. I would never betray that duty.
<br>
<br>
Any suggestion that I have committed malpractice, or that I would breach
<br>
my duty of loyalty to my client, the Libertarian National Committee, is
<br>
a serious accusation. It is also wrong, as a matter of fact and as a
<br>
matter of law. That such accusations were made in a public forum is
<br>
gravely disappointing to me. More important, it is a distraction at a
<br>
time when I should be focusing on the critical legal work that the LNC
<br>
and state party affiliates nationwide need me to do.
<br>
<br>
It remains my honor and privilege to serve the LNC as your counsel, and
<br>
I look forward to returning to that work immediately. Thank you for your
<br>
time and consideration.
<br>
<br>
-Oliver
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote></div><br></div>