INGO Member Facing Loss Of Law License

[HoughMade]

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...

Who owns and insures the lawyer? Most of us are self employed and lawyers are unlikely to tell you how horrible they are...or to even know it.

Where do you go to "check out" your lawyer? What web search do you run? How do you know it's accurate? What book do you look in? With few exceptions, lawyers get named to lists of "greatness" based upon how big an ad they buy in the publication. Mar-Hub is an exception, but there, you are rated based on what lawyers and judges think of you which is not exactly objective. I'm a Martindale Hubbell AV rated lawyer, but I know unrated lawyers who are very good and fellow AV rated lawyers who I wouldn't send my dog to.

The consequences of a poor lawyer, as a poor doctor, are dire and it is difficult to verify how good the professional is. Some of the best doctors have been sued the most and have high mortality rates. Why? Because they are willing to take on the toughest cases in the worst situations.

There is a role for professional licensing and regulation.

 

[rambone]

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

How about hair stylists and interior decorators? How about lemonade stand vendors?

 

[Fargo]

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

And the lawyer is not a .gov employee....

Best,

Joe

 

[rambone]

Where do you go to "check out" your lawyer? What web search do you run? How do you know it's accurate? What book do you look in?

Great questions, zero of them are solved with government licensing. How many people assume that a lawyer must be worth hiring just because he has a government license? He could be the biggest shyster in town! He could play golf with the licensing board for all you know. Only a fool thinks a license means a lawyer is a upstanding professional with a good track record. Caveat emptor still applies.

The consequences of a poor lawyer, as a poor doctor, are dire and it is difficult to verify how good the professional is.

There are tons of poor lawyers and poor doctors with those magic government licenses. There are 100,000 deaths in the USA per year caused by physician malpractice. Assuming a license makes you safe is ridiculous. Licenses are just a way to extort money, exclude competitors, and shut people down for political reasons. They are anti-free market and anti-capitalist.

 

[88GT]

And the lawyer is not a .gov employee....

Best,

Joe

Is your beef with the fact that the government is the vehicle for censure even though it's not his employer? I think I'm reading it right, but I want to make sure.

 

[Fargo]

Is your beef with the fact that the government is the vehicle for censure even though it's not his employer? I think I'm reading it right, but I want to make sure.

The employer thing is simply an apples to oranges comparison that keeps being made here for reasons I don't understand. It isn't a valid analogy or comparison.

My real beef is that some in the government apparently think that the government can retaliate for criticism of the government by preventing otherwise qualified people from practicing law in the courts that same government claims is dispensing justice to its citizens.

For example, in a criminal proceeding, it is the government (prosecutor) asking another government official (judge) to rule on your life/liberty/property. However, if this discipline is happens, it now appears that you cannot be defended by anyone who has criticized that government official (judge) because they won't be allowed to have a law license.

Many on here seem to think that becoming a lawyer somehow makes you a government agent or employee when the primary purpose of a lawyer is to MAKE SURE THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. They are by definition supposed to be obligated to protect rights and pursue justice, without regard to or fear of gov't retaliation.

I cannot understand how what is going on in this case squares with Freedom of Speech or Due Process of Law which are both things guaranteed by the Constitution.

Do people really only want to be allowed to have lawyers who can't criticize the government those lawyers are supposed to be protecting their rights from? Is that not the sort of due process violation that originally sparked the revolutionary war?

But the most grievous innovation of all, is the alarming extension of the power of courts of admiralty. In these courts, one judge presides alone! No juries have any concern there! The law and the fact are both to be decided by the same single judge, whose commission is only during pleasure, and with whom, as we are told, the most mischievous of all customs has become established, that of taking commissions on all condemnations; so that he is under a pecuniary temptation always against the subject. Now, if the wisdom of the mother country has thought the independency of the judges so essential to an impartial administration of justice, as to render them independent of every power on earth,—independent of the King, the Lords, the Commons, the people, nay, independent in hope and expectation of the heir-apparent, by continuing their commissions after a demise of the crown, what justice and impartiality are we, at three thousand miles distance from the fountain, to expect from such a judge of admiralty?

Best,

Joe

 

[Double T]

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

I'm a nurse. I cannot type, write, or say anything that could be misconstrued as negative towards a doctor/hospital/facility/other nurse...if that could cause them a loss of reputation or money.


There are limits to some of the first amendment sadly. That doesn't mean I still don't tell people who to avoid without calling them ****ty doctor's

 

[88GT]

My beef is that the government thinks that it can retaliate for criticism of the government by preventing otherwise qualified people from practicing law in the courts that same government claims is dispensing justice to its citizens.

For example, in a criminal proceeding, it is the government (prosecutor) asking another government official (judge) to rule on your life/liberty/property. However, if this discipline is happens, it now appears that you cannot be defended by anyone who has criticized that government official (judge) because they won't be allowed to have a law license.

Many on here seem to think that becoming a lawyer somehow makes you a government agent or employee when the primary purpose of a lawyer is to MAKE SURE THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. They are by definition supposed to be obligated to protect rights and pursue justice, without regard to or fear of gov't retaliation.

I cannot understand how what is going on in this case squares with Freedom of Speech or Due Process of Law which are both things guaranteed by the Constitution.

Do people really only want to be allowed to have lawyers who can't criticize the government those lawyers are supposed to be protecting their rights from? Is that not the sort of due process violation that originally sparked the revolutionary war?




Best,

Joe

Is the maligned judge the one ruling on the lawyer's fate?

 

[Fargo]

Is the maligned judge the one ruling on the lawyer's fate?

No, his superiors (Supreme Ct. Justices) get to rule on the lawyer.

Joe

 

[actaeon277]

I'm a nurse. I cannot type, write, or say anything that could be misconstrued as negative towards a doctor/hospital/facility/other nurse...if that could cause them a loss of reputation or money.


There are limits to some of the first amendment sadly. That doesn't mean I still don't tell people who to avoid without calling them ****ty doctor's

That is because the bill of rights do not cover employers, only the govt.

 

[Fargo]

I'm a nurse. I cannot type, write, or say anything that could be misconstrued as negative towards a doctor/hospital/facility/other nurse...if that could cause them a loss of reputation or money.


There are limits to some of the first amendment sadly. That doesn't mean I still don't tell people who to avoid without calling them ****ty doctor's

Are Doctors/Hospitals/Nurses somehow the government? Does the 1st Amendment protect you from them?

 

[88GT]

No, his superiors (Supreme Ct. Justices) get to rule on the lawyer.

Joe

Okay. I think I have a complete grasp of it now.

I guess I'm sitting the fence. I see your point. But I also recognize that there's at least a little arm's distance between the accuser and the censuring body. I also see this as a case of a specific ethics violation (it's validity not withstanding) rather than a blanket prohibition on certain types of speech.

Help me understand better. Aside from your employer, is there a governing body over lawyers that regulates ethics and standards? Realtors have NAR to set the standards and the state and local boards to enforce them. Do lawyers have a similar org?

 

[Fargo]

Yes, the governing body is the Supreme Court of Indiana, through its disciplinary commission and Code of Professional Responsibility. It is a purely governmental entity with no direct control from within the membership. It is nothing like a traditional governing body. You submit to its governmental authority or they don't let you into court.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not opposed to the legal profession being regulated and disciplined. I believe it to be necessary. My issue is when they start blanketly taking away constitutional rights to protest government action, particularly criticism of a purely private nature. It isn't like Ogden held a press conference or was suggesting on a radio program that the judge(s) be forcibly sodomized for ruling against him. (That was Geoffrey Fieger up in Michigan who IMO was properly disciplined for that one) No one knew about that email except the other lawyer, until it was published as part of the disciplinary proceeding. I can certainly see regulation of things that are truly prejudicial to the administration of justice, I just don't see how this one is prejudicial or how it isn't protected speech.




Best,

Joe

 

[88GT]

Yes, the governing body is the Supreme Court of Indiana, through its disciplinary commission and Code of Professional Responsibility. It is a purely governmental entity with no direct control from within the membership. It is nothing like a traditional governing body. You submit to its governmental authority or they don't let you into court.

Don't misunderstand me, I am not opposed to the legal profession being regulated and disciplined. I believe it to be necessary. My issue is when they start blanketly taking away constitutional rights to protest government action, particularly criticism of a purely private nature. It isn't like Ogden held a press conference or was suggesting on a radio program that the judge(s) be forcibly sodomized for ruling against him. (That was Geoffrey Fieger up in Michigan who IMO was properly disciplined for that one) No one knew about that email except the other lawyer, until it was published as part of the disciplinary proceeding. I can certainly see regulation of things that are truly prejudicial to the administration of justice, I just don't see how this one is prejudicial or how it isn't protected speech.




Best,

Joe

No, no, it's all good. I'm just trying to understand better. I would have thought the Bar (BAR?) would have been the independent body of regulation, but I would have thought wrong, huh? Yes, I definitely see your concern. Sufficient for courtroom behavior and the like, but beyond the pale for private correspondence.

 

[Phil502]

It appears the noose is tightening up on all of us.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It appears the noose is tightening up on all of us.

Indeed so, especially as the .gov is reading most forms of our communications and we get progressively closer to the day when declaring that any official is ugly and his momma dresses him funny constitutes a punishable offense.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a bit of an update and a look into what Paul is being put through by these people. It certainly seems as if he's being targeted by an out of control body.

Ogden on Politics: Hearing Provides More Evidence that the Indiana Supreme Court Needs to Order an Investigation of the Disciplinary Process

 

[IndyDave1776]

Here's a bit of an update and a look into what Paul is being put through by these people. It certainly seems as if he's being targeted by an out of control body.

Ogden on Politics: Hearing Provides More Evidence that the Indiana Supreme Court Needs to Order an Investigation of the Disciplinary Process

They would strike back hard at someone raising awareness of their illegal gravy train? Say it isn't so! (and while you're at it, insert purple as needed)

 

[Double T]

No, but the board of nursing holds my professional license, and I don't feel like owing anyone money that I don't rightfully owe

 

[Mark 1911]

Here's a bit of an update and a look into what Paul is being put through by these people. It certainly seems as if he's being targeted by an out of control body.

Ogden on Politics: Hearing Provides More Evidence that the Indiana Supreme Court Needs to Order an Investigation of the Disciplinary Process

I could not tell from reading this if they are done grilling Mr. Ogden, or still in the process. Has a decision been reached on whether his license will be suspended?