The Model Rules explicitly disallow the type of defense she’s posing, I.e. “my boss told me it was OK!” She knows this, so she’s attempting to shift to a defense of innocent negligence (lack of diligence), rather than willful violations of law and ethics rules. Which, given she’s just agreed to be convicted of a crime or crimes, is going to be a tough defense to put up.
I believe Colorado will start separate bar/ethics proceedings now that’s she’s been newly convicted of a crime. She was not convicted when the CO Bar originally censured her, though the subject of the censure is largely the same.
TL;DR: She’s chock full of shit and hopes the CO Bar is going to punish her for a lack of diligence (which might be a lesser punishment) than for intentionally attempting to subvert an election.
Source: I’m a lawyer barred in two states. Kill me.
Disclaimer: take whatever I say with a massive grain of salt, I’m not your lawyer, I’m not barred in Colorado, etc.
Thanks for the update man, I was on pins and needles wondering what you were going to do after seeing this story! Update us later on what you'll be eating for lunch!
Anyone else think the Sake part of the story is really weird too? Like, is that the preferred pairing with human flesh? Who makes that recommendation? A cannibal sommelier?
Can she unilaterally pass a law like that? Serious question, I’m not at all familiar with the governmental and legislative process in Iceland.