INGO Member Facing Loss Of Law License

[Fargo]

On first blush, it does appear to be an over reaction. However, our employee handbook plainly states that we can be disciplined, up to dismissal, for behavior that the company deems to be detrimental to its interests. Partly because of that (partly because of other reasons), even here, I weigh what I say; I don't put certain thoughts/comments in emails or texts to my peers; and I am even careful of what I put on my Facebook page.

It is unfortunate that an email that Ogden wrote didn't stay confidential but unfortunate things happen so you'd better use caution in what you say or write or be prepared to pay the price.

So you surrender your 1st amendment rights by being accepted into the bar? As the bar is regulated wholly by the government, I fail to see what it has in common with private contractual employment.

From what little I know of it, I don't see how Paul did anything disciplinable. However, he has been the nail sticking up for some time, and that (unfortunately) tends to attract hammers.

Best,

Joe

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So you surrender your 1st amendment rights by being accepted into the bar? As the bar is regulated wholly by the government, I fail to see what it has in common with private contractual employment.

I don't see how Paul did anything disciplinable. He may be correct that his criticism of the disciplinary commission has garnered him some undue attention.

Best,

Joe

Yeah, I don't know, other than what I read in the OP, what the implications and/or requirements are for an attorney, as a member of the bar, in what they are permitted to do/say about judges, or whatever. I'm not even saying I think it's right. What I am saying is, that as part of many people's employment "contract", you can be sanctioned for what you do "on you own time". From that standpoint, I agree the company or even the public should be able to decide with whom they wish to enter into or continue an employment arrangement. When the arrangement is no longer in both parties' interest, either one should be able discontinue it, in accordance with any agreements.

As I said above, it appears to be an over reaction by the judge. If I threw a hissy every time one of my peers or subordinates had something negative to say about me on a daily basis, I'd never make it to lunch time.

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, I don't know, other than what I read in the OP, what the implications and/or requirements are for an attorney, as a member of the bar, in what they are permitted to do/say about judges, or whatever. I'm not even saying I think it's right. What I am saying is, that as part of many people's employment "contract", you can be sanctioned for what you do "on you own time". From that standpoint, I agree the company or even the public should be able to decide with whom they wish to enter into or continue an employment arrangement. When the arrangement is no longer in both parties' interest, either one should be able discontinue it, in accordance with any agreements.

As I said above, it appears to be an over reaction by the judge. If I threw a hissy every time one of my peers or subordinates had something negative to say about me on a daily basis, I'd never make it to lunch time.

Attorneys are not employed by the bar, nor are they employees of the judge they appear in front of. All the bar is is a licensing structure. What other sorts of gov't licensing of private employment sectors do you think could carry a forfeiture of constitutional rights?

Best,

Joe

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Attorneys are not employed by the bar, nor are they employees of the judge they appear in front of. All the bar is is a licensing structure. What other sorts of gov't licensing of private employment sectors do you think could carry a forfeiture of constitutional rights?

Best,

Joe

I am pretty sure the private contractors (as in the employees), working on government projects, are required to refrain from unfettered exercise of certain rights as part of their employment. I am pretty sure that police officers can be disciplined for certain actions they engage while on the job--as an example--probably similar to those that the rule 8.2 is meant to constrain a lawyer's comments about ongoing cases. Those are not examples of licensing arrangements with the .gov but I'm pretty sure that any employment arrangement can interfere with the exercising of your rights--as long as you value your employment.

 

[Fargo]

Both the people you cite above are employed by (police) the government or have contractual employment obligations (contractors) to the government. Attorneys are neither employed by nor contractors of the government simply by being attorneys.

Best,

Joe

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Both the people you cite above are employed by (police) the government or have contractual employment obligations (contractors) to the government. Attorneys are neither employed by nor contractors of the government simply by being attorneys.

Best,

Joe

OK. But they agree to abide by the licensing requirements of the state in which they wish to practice law. It's not a perfect analogy to a police officer, government contractor, or even a private employee but as with the other examples, it is a mutual agreement freely entered into by all parties. If they don't like the possibility of having certain rights interfered with, they should choose a different field of endeavor.

Again, as a disclaimer, as I read the information in this situation, it appears the judge/committee is abusing his/their discretion and stretching a rule to go after somebody that annoys them.

 

[HavokCycle]

first amendment rights does not protect your occupation.

a professional is expected to act as a professional.

if i'm at an off-duty get together and happen to **** on a client's shoes, metaphorically and/or physically (more likely the latter) i'm probably to wind up searching for a job monday.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

first amendment rights does not protect your occupation.

a professional is expected to act as a professional.

if i'm at an off-duty get together and happen to **** on a client's shoes, metaphorically and/or physically (more likely the latter) i'm probably to wind up searching for a job monday.

You're always on the clock. If you're out with co-workers for a beer after work or office Christmas party, "the boss" is always watching.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

When I hear this case discussed I cannot help but wonder if he had written it in a motion (public record) instead of a private e-mail it would not have been subject to the DC.

 

[Fargo]

When I hear this case discussed I cannot help but wonder if he had written it in a motion (public record) instead of a private e-mail it would not have been subject to the DC.

It sounds like he did write it in a motion as from what I read, the judge had eventually recused himself.

This whole thing seems really strange.

Best,

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It sounds like he did write it in a motion as from what I read, the judge had eventually recused himself.

That is my understanding as well.

My question is that: if he left it in a motion he would have been doing his job in advocating for his client. However, when he e-mail's another it becomes a DC matter?

I have made judges mad by filing motions that they do not like, but it is what we are to do to put ourselves between the government and the client. Sometimes there will be hurt feelings and much more, but yellow footprints and all that.

I do not understand why the DC is involved. I look forward to reading the decision, however it comes out.

 

[Mark 1911]

I wish Paul the best and hope he doesn't lose his license. I'm not an attorney so my opinion is worth squat, but here's my own gut feeling as just an everyday guy on the street. Reading the second link the OP posted, it explained something to the effect that if an attorney posts something that undermines the public's confidence in the administration of justice that the attorney can be disciplined. From the way the article explains it, it sounds like a mis-application of the rule, and that the judge is just pushing his weight around. I can't help thinking how unfair this is based on my own disillusionment with our judges in this country, that public confidence in the administration of justice has been undermined infinitely more by judges abusing their power, this case is just another sad example, than by any insignificant email written privately by an attorney. These judges are too arrogant to see it. My confidence is undermined, it has been for a long time, but it is not the fault of citizens like Paul speaking up like free Americans.

 

[Fargo]

I do not understand why the DC is involved. I look forward to reading the decision, however it comes out.

Legally, I don't understand either. Factually, from what I know of Paul and his writing, I am left really hoping that I don't actually understand.


Joe

 

[IndyDave1776]

Attorneys are not employed by the bar, nor are they employees of the judge they appear in front of. All the bar is is a licensing structure. What other sorts of gov't licensing of private employment sectors do you think could carry a forfeiture of constitutional rights?

Best,

Joe

Exactly! This is no different than having your driver's license (or plumber's license for that matter) revoked for saying that the governor is a numbskull.

 

[GCA321321]

How is going after this guy for what he said in a private conversation , " legal " in any way ?

He has a first amendment right to say whatever he wants....so he can't and won't be charged criminally... The issue is whether he violated the attorney code of conduct. While he has the right to say whatever he wants under the 1st amendment and not be held legally liable, he can still be held accountable in the professional arena (aka lose his license). The issue is whether there is a distinction (or should be a distinction) between private comments + public comments.

 

[Fargo]

He has a first amendment right to say whatever he wants....so he can't and won't be charged criminally... The issue is whether he violated the attorney code of conduct. While he has the right to say whatever he wants under the 1st amendment and not be held legally liable, he can still be held accountable in the professional arena (aka lose his license). The issue is whether there is a distinction (or should be a distinction) between private comments + public comments.

For the umpteenth time, it is NOT THE PROFESSIONAL ARENA HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE. It is the GOVERNMENT in the body of the INDIANA SUPREME COURT. They are NOT HIS EMPLOYER. They are NOT HIS CLIENT.

The 1st Amendment is not limited to protection from criminal proceedings. It is a protection against GOVERNMENT interference with speech, and political speech in particular.


Joe

 

[GCA321321]

For the umpteenth time, it is NOT THE PROFESSIONAL ARENA HOLDING HIM ACCOUNTABLE. It is the GOVERNMENT in the body of the INDIANA SUPREME COURT. They are NOT HIS EMPLOYER. They are NOT HIS CLIENT.

The 1st Amendment is not limited to protection from criminal proceedings. It is a protection against GOVERNMENT interference with speech, and political speech in particular.


Joe

Unfortunately, saying something umpteenth times doesn't make it true. He is appearing before the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, which is charged with regulating the conduct of all lawyers, judges and other members certified to practice law in the state of Indiana. The court is not his client nor employer, but he is an officer of the court and is subject to their rules and/or code of conduct. The justice dept disciplines all lawyers in this same fashion, as it is how they regulate the PROFESSION. He is very much being held accountable in the professional arena and professional arena only, further evidenced by the fact that his only potential repercussion is the revoking of his PROFESSIONAL license.

 

[Fargo]

Unfortunately, saying something umpteenth times doesn't make it true. He is appearing before the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, which is charged with regulating the conduct of all lawyers, judges and other members certified to practice law in the state of Indiana. The court is not his client nor employer, but he is an officer of the court and is subject to their rules and/or code of conduct. The justice dept disciplines all lawyers in this same fashion, as it is how they regulate the PROFESSION. He is very much being held accountable in the professional arena and professional arena only, further evidenced by the fact that his only potential repercussion is the revoking of his PROFESSIONAL license.

The Justice Department disciplines lawyers for attorney misconduct? That's a new one to me (and I suspect pretty much all lawyers). Which part of the Justice Dept does this? Under what authority? Maybe you should let the Federal Cts know as for some reason they seem to think they have that power, not the Justice Dept.

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The Justice Department disciplines lawyers for attorney misconduct?

Yeah, kinda sort.

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, kinda sort.

How so? I know the OPR disciplines Gov't attorneys but I believe the Fed Cts handle everything outside of that.

Best,

Joe