I can see how it could be a sensitive subject to the Brown family. Sure, it was Robert's job to defend OJ, but their daughter was killed and the murderer basically got away with it. Of course they don't blame Robert BUT it could still totally be a very sensitive subject to them. Most likely they invited Kim though. I don't think just anyone was allowed to attend or else you know Paris would have been there.
This Is Wildly Inappropriate
- Thread starter sheishollywood
- Start date
From Wikipedia:
Kardashian and Simpson first met while playing tennis in the early 1970s and had become close friends. When Simpson was charged with murder, it had been 20 years since Kardashian was last in a courtroom. Kardashian was a graduate of University of Southern California Law School, and his license to practice law had expired three years before. He reactivated his license to aid in Simpson's defense, as a volunteer on his legal team. Kardashian sat by Simpson throughout the trial.
Some time after the trial, Kardashian expressed doubts about O.J. Simpson's innocence in a way that led to a California bar investigation.[1] Although this strained his relationship with O.J. Simpson at the time, by the time of his death they had "put it aside" and after his death.
Kardashian and Simpson first met while playing tennis in the early 1970s and had become close friends. When Simpson was charged with murder, it had been 20 years since Kardashian was last in a courtroom. Kardashian was a graduate of University of Southern California Law School, and his license to practice law had expired three years before. He reactivated his license to aid in Simpson's defense, as a volunteer on his legal team. Kardashian sat by Simpson throughout the trial.
Some time after the trial, Kardashian expressed doubts about O.J. Simpson's innocence in a way that led to a California bar investigation.[1] Although this strained his relationship with O.J. Simpson at the time, by the time of his death they had "put it aside" and after his death.
Maybe that's a reference to STD's because of the sex tape.
Don't quote me on that because I really don't know.
Regardless, it's really mean.
Maybe she did not agree with her father....maybe she was on Nicole's side....I don't find it inappropriate at all. It's more like she's making a statement.
This was taken from his blog:
"What Would Tyler Durden Do" is a blog focused on bringing you the latest gossip and news about rich and famous celebrities. And then making fun of them. Why? Because f
ck them, that's why."
Charming.
Perez Hilton may be immature sometimes but he's not unnecessarily mean to people. And when he does take shots at people, I find they tend to be good natured barbs.
Tyler Durden is unnecessarily cruel. I mean he is a REAL See You Next Tuesday.
"What Would Tyler Durden Do" is a blog focused on bringing you the latest gossip and news about rich and famous celebrities. And then making fun of them. Why? Because f
ck them, that's why."Charming.
Perez Hilton may be immature sometimes but he's not unnecessarily mean to people. And when he does take shots at people, I find they tend to be good natured barbs.
Tyler Durden is unnecessarily cruel. I mean he is a REAL See You Next Tuesday.
This may be a dumb question because I'm not in the law field but... would that be a conflict of interest?
I don't know if I believe the Wikipedia entry. You can't just "reactivate" your law license just because you want to. You need to complete several hours of Continuing Legal Education classes every year just in order to keep your law license. At least that's how it works in my state, I suppose California could be different but I still stand by my statement that it cannot be a simple, trip-to-the-courthouse thing to "reactivate" your license.
Anyway, a conflict of interest is more when you're defending a client (say, a corporation) and the plaintiff is also a client of yours. It's not a personal relationship thing.
Anyway, a conflict of interest is more when you're defending a client (say, a corporation) and the plaintiff is also a client of yours. It's not a personal relationship thing.
I agree that we can't blame her - or her father really - for OJ being found not guilty. Her dad was just doing his job, which he is obviously good at - blimey I mean - how old must she have been at the time of the trial anyway?
It would have been a lot more inappropriate if OJ had turned up!!!!
It would have been a lot more inappropriate if OJ had turned up!!!!
If the Wikipedia entry is wrong then he wasn't even acting in the capacity as a "consultant" if he had no license and he was just there as a "friend". So he wasn't representing OJ at all.
I believe Kardashian was a defending lawyer, but I could be wrong. Either way, it was his choice to be there. The only way you have to take a case as a lawyer is if you're a public defender or your firm makes you do it. And you can always try to find a job with another firm.
As far as Kim going to the event, I think she showed poor judgment. She must have realized that there could be negative repercussions.
As far as Kim going to the event, I think she showed poor judgment. She must have realized that there could be negative repercussions.