INGO Member Facing Loss Of Law License

[GCA321321]

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

The judiciary... The Supreme Court of Indiana, in this case...which then commissioned the board that this guy now sits before. Very different than the government going after him on other grounds.

 

[GCA321321]

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

Best,

Joe

The Indiana Supreme Court governs and disciplines all attorneys licensed to practice in Indiana. How so? The exact way you are seeing them do it right now...they send the attorney to the disciplinary commission...who then renders a punishment (counseling, suspension of license, termination of license, etc.) Should I go ahead and contact the other lawyers you spoke of to let them know?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The issue is whether there is a distinction (or should be a distinction) between private comments + public comments.

No need to over think it , of course there should be a distinction .

If he should lose his license will he have any recourse against the person that " leaked " the email ?

 

[Fargo]

The Indiana Supreme Court governs and disciplines all attorneys licensed to practice in Indiana. How so? The exact way you are seeing them do it right now...they send the attorney to the disciplinary commission...who then renders a punishment (counseling, suspension of license, termination of license, etc.) Should I go ahead and contact the other lawyers you spoke of to let them know?

The justice dept disciplines all lawyers in this same fashion, as it is how they regulate the PROFESSION.

And the judiciary is the Justice Dept how????? You know, one is the judicial branch, the other is part of the federal executive branch?

Joe

 

[GCA321321]

No need to over think it , of course there should be a distinction .

If he should lose his license will he have any recourse against the person that " leaked " the email ?

I agree. Should be a distinction.

Meant Indiana judiciary...not justice dept. Corrected it in next post...regardless, initial point remains...this man is under scrutiny in the professional arena as an attorney.

Anyway, look forward to hearing the outcome.

 

[Fargo]

I agree. Should be a distinction.

Meant Indiana judiciary...not justice dept. Corrected it in next post...regardless, initial point remains...this man is under scrutiny in the professional arena as an attorney.

Anyway, look forward to hearing the outcome.

Does it not trouble you that according to the charges in this case; the only way you will be allowed to defend citizens in court against the government is if you give up your rights to criticize certain members of that same government?

Do you not think that sort of thing is why the 1st Amendment exists?

Do you not think that impairs your and every other citizen's ability to be properly represented in the courts of that government?

Joe

 

[88GT]

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

Realtors. I am prohibited by federal law from making particular kinds of comments.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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)

Answer: Keeping my feet dry at Havok's party.

On topic:

Help me out here, is he being disciplined for simply saying he doesn't like someone, for casting aspersions on the judge accusing him of doing something, or what? Sounds shady, but if the Star said the sky was dark at night, I'd go out and verify.

 

[CarmelHP]

there's something to be said for maintaining professional decorum at all times, in fact in most professional companies its in the policy. to be disbarred however.... is a different matter.

It's unlikely to be a permanent disbarment, if anything. it could be nothing or as little as a private letter of reprimand.

 

[CarmelHP]

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.

Hold it. The only thing I can think of that he is alleged to have violated is IRPC 8.2 and it's pretty limited:

Rule 8.2. Judicial and Legal Officials
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.

 

[GCA321321]

Does it not trouble you that according to the charges in this case; the only way you will be allowed to defend citizens in court against the government is if you give up your rights to criticize certain members of that same government?

Do you not think that sort of thing is why the 1st Amendment exists?

Do you not think that impairs your and every other citizen's ability to be properly represented in the courts of that government?

Joe

1) It would and does absolutely trouble me. Albeit for very different reasons. Please don't mistake my trying to explain/discuss the attorney disciplinary process in Indiana for supporting the actions of the judge and/or disciplinary committee in this situation.

2) You are only asked to give up a portion of your 1st amendment rights if you CHOOSE to be a member of the legal profession in the state of Indiana. Remember, if this guy isn't a lawyer, he can say whatever the hell he wants about this or any other judge (short of a threat against their safety). The same applies to most professions with some sort of governing body, as many have posted examples of above- police officers, realtors, doctors, nurses. In these professions, you are held to a higher standard and if you fail to meet that standard (despite not breaking any state or federal laws) you can be forcibly removed from that profession.

For example, what if someone forwards an email to the disciplinary committee where an attorney says, " I hate all gun owners. From now on, I am going to purposefully lose every case where I represent a gun owner." Well, he certainly has a 1st amendment right to say that both in private via email and in public. However, we would both probably agree he isn't fit to be a lawyer.

 

[IndyDave1776]

1) It would and does absolutely trouble me. Albeit for very different reasons. Please don't mistake my trying to explain/discuss the attorney disciplinary process in Indiana for supporting the actions of the judge and/or disciplinary committee in this situation.

2) You are only asked to give up a portion of your 1st amendment rights if you CHOOSE to be a member of the legal profession in the state of Indiana. Remember, if this guy isn't a lawyer, he can say whatever the hell he wants about this or any other judge (short of a threat against their safety). The same applies to most professions with some sort of governing body, as many have posted examples of above- police officers, realtors, doctors, nurses. In these professions, you are held to a higher standard and if you fail to meet that standard (despite not breaking any state or federal laws) you can be forcibly removed from that profession.

For example, what if someone forwards an email to the disciplinary committee where an attorney says, " I hate all gun owners. From now on, I am going to purposefully lose every case where I represent a gun owner." Well, he certainly has a 1st amendment right to say that both in private via email and in public. However, we would both probably agree he isn't fit to be a lawyer.

You do realize that if this statement were true, then the First Amendment could not truthfully be said to be a right. I would in fact have been demoted to a revocable privilege.

 

[Fargo]

The same applies to most professions with some sort of governing body, as many have posted examples of above- police officers, realtors, doctors, nurses. In these professions, you are held to a higher standard and if you fail to meet that standard (despite not breaking any state or federal laws) you can be forcibly removed from that profession.

No, it isn't the same. How many of the governing bodies of the professions you list above (except police who are gov't employees) forfeit their right to criticize certain members of the govt? Political speech is what the 1st Am is primarily about.

Also, how many of those boards can be fined/incarcerated without criminal charges if you defy their disciplinary edicts? I know at least one (disbarred) lawyer, William Rawls, who spent time in the DOC for not abiding by his discipline. Pretending like this is some sort of purely professional licensing is naive in my opinion. The consequences go way beyond that.

Joe

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I got this some attention last night.

Shared story with Todd Kincannon, a SC lawyer. He was discussing it last night, and into today: https://twitter.com/ToddKincannon

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Does it not trouble you that according to the charges in this case; the only way you will be allowed to defend citizens in court against the government is if you give up your rights to criticize certain members of that same government?

Do you not think that sort of thing is why the 1st Amendment exists?

Do you not think that impairs your and every other citizen's ability to be properly represented in the courts of that government?

Joe

Military personnel give up far more rights than this to protect the entire country and its citizenry. Just sayin'. . . .

 

[HoughMade]

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.

That's a good question. To me, the issue is whether he was making factual claims that are objectively verifiable, or statements of opinon that called the judge's integrity into question. I simply don't know. Even then, I think all involved would agree that these issues could have been avoided if the complaint was made to the proper authorities, rather than simply another person. However, it, of course, bothers me that a person could be subjected to discipline for a private e-mail....but it goes to prove, never send something in an e-mail to a person who may tell the judge, unless you are fine with the judge finding out.

Lawyers are completely free to criticize the decisions of judges. As licensed professionals, they are not free to make recklessly false claims about a judge's integrity.

In re Wilkins, 782 N.E.2d 985, 986 (Ind. 2003)

also,

This Court in the past has not addressed, specifically, the constitutional tension between the First Amendment and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Upon reflection of this question, it is our belief that a generalized test cannot be drawn. Each prohibition, circumscribed by the factual setting present in a particular case, must be examined in light of the affected State interest and measured against the limitation placed on the freedom of expression.

416 N.E. 2d at 437. The prohibitions in Prof.Cond.R. 8.2(a) are concerned with preserving the public's confidence in the administration of justice. See, e.g., Matter of Garringer, 626 N.E.2d 809, 813 (Ind. 1994) ("We note that the duty violated by the Respondent [in violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.2] was his obligation to refrain from acting in a way that damages the integrity of the judicial system. . . . As we have stated, "unwarranted public suggestion by an attorney that a judicial officer is motivated by criminal purpose and considerations does nothing but weaken and erode the public's confidence in an impartial adjudicatory process [other citation omitted]."). See also Comment to Prof.Cond.R. 8.2. n3 Applying the Friedland analysis here, we find that the respondent offered no evidence to support his contentions that, for example, the Court of Appeals was determined to find for appellee, no matter what. Without evidence, such statements should not be made anywhere. With evidence, they should be made to the Judicial Qualifications Commission.... In this case, the state's interest in preserving the public's confidence in the judicial system and the overall administration of justice far outweighed any need for the respondent to air his unsubstantiated concerns in an improper forum for such statements.

In re Wilkins, 777 N.E.2d 714, 717-718 (Ind. 2002)

I would hate to see a guy disciplined for telling the truth, if that is what he did, just because of the forum of the statement, but in our profession, it pays to be more careful than you think you need to be.

 

[actaeon277]

Military personnel give up far more rights than this to protect the entire country and its citizenry. Just sayin'. . . .

I think there's quite a bit of difference there. The lawyer is not in a REAL battle.

 

[rambone]

For example, what if someone forwards an email to the disciplinary committee where an attorney says, " I hate all gun owners. From now on, I am going to purposefully lose every case where I represent a gun owner." Well, he certainly has a 1st amendment right to say that both in private via email and in public. However, we would both probably agree he isn't fit to be a lawyer.

What business is it of yours what he's "fit" to do? If a client doesn't bother to do any research on his lawyer, then he gets what he gets.

Caveat emptor.

 

[HoughMade]

What business is it of yours what he's "fit" to do? If a client doesn't bother to do any research on his lawyer, then he gets what he gets.

Caveat emptor.

I feel the same way about bus drivers, pilots and train engineers.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I feel the same way about bus drivers, pilots and train engineers.

While I see the point that you are trying to make - one could also argue that the onus is on the dude that owns (and insures) the bus, train, or airplane. If something goes wrong - THEY are the ones that will be liable...

Granted that's the "deregulate everything" model...