Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘lawyer discipline’

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Yogi2.JPG/246px-Yogi2.JPGAnticipating Arizona’s 66% solar eclipse tomorrow — sans ISO-approved glasses — I was thinking about Yogi Berra’s, “You can observe a lot by watching.”

Unfortunately, I won’t be outside watching. In lieu of eye damage1 or a pinhole camera, instead I’ll observe the path of totality on TV or online.

A week out, I was wrong to believe I could readily pick up a pair of eclipse glasses at my local retailer. What was I thinking? The early bird gets a worm and solar eclipse glasses.

No matter. It’s not like I haven’t seen my share of Hollywood solar eclipses. Apocalypto remains a fave.

 

Known unknowns.

 

While not rising to the level of a Yogi Berra malapropism, this past week also found me reflecting on another almost ‘Yogi-ism.’ It was former Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld’s memorable obviousness:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

I thought of Rumsfeld when courtesy of our friendly state bar’s press office, I learned that a young lawyer had just been disbarred. He’d been practicing all of 6 years. What a lot of toil and treasure wasted I thought — hardly time to get an ROI.

I never met the lawyer. But I do know he was active on social media, seemingly the consummate modern-day lawyer marketer. He even officed in his own name-identified building.

There’s no point mentioning his name or discussing his case’s merits. My sole reason in raising the disbarment is that it highlights another of life’s most important truths — besides not staring at the sun. Lawyer, baker or candlestick maker, most of us don’t know as much as we think we do.

It’s an unfortunate truth that tends to be ignored, especially among some of the legal profession’s newest practitioners. Faced with paying down horrendous tuition loans, circumspection becomes an unaffordable luxury. And having survived law school and passed the bar exam, too many lawyers suffer from illusory superiority.

About the same time I read about the disbarment, the article, “Common Mistakes When Starting a Law Practice” arrived in my inbox. Disbarment wasn’t listed as one of the “common mistakes.” Overspending, incompetency and several others were. But since suspension and disbarment are always possible consequences of going it alone, mentioning those sanctions was perhaps deemed superfluous.

However, what I did think deserved mentioning but wasn’t was Rumsfeld’s succinct knowledge-gap admonition, “There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

_____________________________________________________________

1Never ones to disappoint, rest assured there’ll be lawyers geared up to file product liability lawsuits for anyone claiming retinal damage from uncertified eclipse glasses. Others will hope to sign aggrieved employees ready to tag employers for injured eyeball fallout after attending ill-advised company hosted eclipse-viewing parties at work.

Credits: Yogi Berra, by Google Man at Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons Attribution.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Last month, an Arizona psychic was at a restaurant having lunch when a car crashed through the window, threw him up in the air, and pinned him against a wall. “I didn’t foresee it happening,” joked injured psychic Blair Robertson after the accident. See “Arizona psychic injured when he ‘didn’t foresee’ car crash.”

Whether or not you believe in clairvoyance, you don’t need psychic powers to foresee that state bars without fail welcome their own collisions with the liberty interests of their members. It’s integral to the “do-gooder” mentality endemic among the “moral busybodies” running state bar associations.

“Those who torment us for our own good,” said C.S. Lewis, “will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” 

Do-gooders.

https://lawmrh.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/travel-tourism-18.jpg?w=1000&h=The latest do-gooder intrusion comes from a surprising quarter, the State Bar of Nevada. At one time, the Nevada Bar could be characterized by a laissez-faire attitude consistent with Nevadans’ strong independent, libertarian streak. But oh, how times have changed.

Last year, in a misguided effort grounded on anecdotal conjecture about supposed prevalent substance abuse and mental health problems among Nevada’s lawyers, Nevada’s Bar Governors petitioned the high court for another mandatory hour of annual continuing legal education in substance abuse prevention and mental health.

Continuing legal education has never been proven it makes lawyers more competent or ethical. Just the same, the Nevada Bar thought an hour of mandatory substance abuse/mental health CLE would help make lawyers abstemious and healthy-minded.

And not satisfied with only that moral meddlesomeness, the board next appointed a task force to study whether Nevada lawyers should pay more to practice by following the Oregon Bar’s improvident model of forced professional liability insurance. Oregon’s insurance mandate currently compels lawyers to pay a hefty $3,500.00 annually for the merest nominal coverage.

https://lawmrh.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/people-16688.jpg?w=163&h=155At Revenge of the Do-Gooderin The American Thinker, Scott Boerman explained what animates the do-gooder is “a great desire to cure humanity’s ills and imperfections with solutions that invariably focus on controlling other people’s property and productivity. Not to be confused with real volunteers and philanthropists — who use their own skills and wealth to directly help a favored cause — the do-gooder uses only his brain to decide precisely what everyone else what should do with their abilities and wealth. And because the do-gooder is so confident that his plans are good for humanity, he strives to impose his will with a stick, be it regulatory, monetary, or via public brow-beating.”  

An unconstitutional speech code.

Nevada’s Bar, however, may have finally reached the apex of do-gooding thanks to a petition filed May 8th asking the state supreme court to adopt the new ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) which amends Nevada Rule 8.4 by adding an entirely new subsection (g). It reads:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: . . . (g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status related to the practice of lawThis paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.  This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

No jurisdiction has yet adopted the ABA 8.4 (g) model rule concoction passed last fall. Nevada hopes to be first.

Meanwhile, the amendment hits Boerman’s do-gooder regulatory, monetary and public brow-beating trifecta. Violations mean notoriety. Regulatory sanctions impact a lawyer’s ability to earn a living.

Academics like UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh and South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman have weighed in against the proposed rule on constitutional grounds. The Attorneys General of Texas and South Carolina have also officially opined that a court would likely conclude ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) not only amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the free speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association of attorneys but it’s also unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. See Opinion No. KP-0123, Attorney General of Texas and 14 South Carolina Attorney General Opinion.

Other commentators contend that by only proscribing speech that is derogatory, demeaning, or harmful toward members of certain designated classes, the Rule is an unconstitutional content-based speech restriction. Others argue attorney conscience rights are also adversely implicated.

Professor Blackman further raises separation of powers problems when bar disciplinary authorities lacking the “boundless discretion over all aspects of an attorney’s life” nevertheless attempt to regulate conduct beyond their legal power or authority.

More bar complaints.

But the real upshot is heightened lawyer liability when state bar disciplinary police are given unprecedented new powers to punish lawyers for conduct not directly connected with what ethical rule 8.4 already prohibits, which is misconduct while representing a client or implicating fitness to practice or prejudicing the administration of justice. The new rule enlarges the scope to include social conferences, bar association activities and private speech far removed from providing actual legal services.

As Professor Blackman further wrote in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics about Model Rule 8.4(g):

“Lectures and debates hosted by bar associations that offer Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits are necessarily held “in connection with the practice of law.” Lawyers are required to attend such classes to maintain their law licenses. It is not difficult to imagine how certain topics could reasonably be found by attendees to be “derogatory or demeaning” on the basis of one of the eleven protected classes in Rule 8.4(g).

Blackman lists sample topics chosen as he says for their “deliberate provocativeness” where a lawyer attendee might subject herself to discipline since the speaker “reasonably should know” that someone at the event could find the remarks disparaging towards one of the eleven protected groups.” Here are a few:

“● Race—A speaker discusses “mismatch theory,” and contends that race based affirmative action should be banned because it hurts minority students by placing them in education settings where they have a lower chance of success.
● Gender—A speaker argues that women should not be eligible for combat duty in the military, and should continue to be excluded from the selective service requirements.
● Religion—A speaker states that the owners of a for-profit corporation who request a religious exemption from the contraceptive mandate are bigoted and misogynistic.
● National Origin—A speaker contends that the plenary power doctrine permits the government to exclude aliens from certain countries that are deemed dangerous.
● Ethnicity—A speaker states that Korematsu v. United States sas correctly decided, and that during times of war, the President should be able to exclude individuals based on their ethnicity.
● Sexual Orientation—A speaker contends that Obergefell v. Hodges was incorrectly decided, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit classifications on the basis of sexual orientation.”

All of which means an amended Nevada Rule 8.4 will unwisely empower a mandatory bar to extend existing lawyer First Amendment encroachments upon new terrains of unconstitutional discipline.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Nevada Supreme Court invites written comment from the bench, bar, and public regarding the proposed amendments. The Hearing date is July 17, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., Supreme Court Courtroom, 408 East Clark Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101. The Comment deadline is July 5, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, 201 South Carson Street, Carson City, Nevada 89701.


Photo Credits: “Psychic,” by The She-Creature at Flickr Attribution;  “Satisfaction,” by Walter Kramer at Flickr Attribution; “aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh,” by Marco Boscolo at Flickr Attribution;”Tread Upon Now What?” by John Eisenschenk at Flickr Attribution; “kindness, persuasion, punishment,” by Meagan Fisher at Flickr Attribution.

Read Full Post »

Note: The following story was originally published by ProPublica, “an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.” It is republished with permission.

The behavior of Bill Kephart, who led the murder prosecution of Fred Steese, was repeatedly lambasted by the Supreme Court of Nevada. But that didn’t stop him from becoming a judge. This month he was charged with misconduct in that position too.

by Megan Rose, ProPublica

May 26, 2017

In the legal world, prosecutors are rarely called out by name. Their misconduct is usually attributed to unidentified prosecutors or the “State” in rulings by appellate judges. But as a Las Vegas prosecutor, Bill Kephart — now a judge — achieved a dubious distinction: He was chastised publicly.

The Supreme Court of Nevada took the rare step in 2001 of ordering him to prove why he shouldn’t be sanctioned for his behavior in one of his cases with a fine or a referral to the state bar for “violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct.” The ruling was disseminated statewide and, in Kephart’s own words, “professionally embarrassed” him. In his response, he wrote that the ruling had “already had a great impact” on him and promised that there wouldn’t be “a bona fide allegation of prosecutorial misconduct against me in the future.” The justices nevertheless fined him $250.

Fred Steese served more than 20 years in prison for murder even though evidence in the prosecution’s files proved he didn’t do it. But when the truth came to light, he was offered a confounding deal. Read the story.

The Supreme Court’s rebuke was particularly notable in Nevada, where the judges are elected and part of the state’s insular legal community. They typically rule unanimously and seldom come down too hard on prosecutors. As one retired chief justice put it: “Picking fights with district attorneys might not be the best thing for [a judge’s] career continuation.” But Kephart’s behavior challenged that status quo, compelling one or more of the justices to issue dissents in several cases, saying his behavior called for convictions to be overturned.

Overall, the Nevada high court has noted prosecutorial misconduct in at least five of his cases over a dozen years, not including his actions during the trial of Fred Steese — who was tried by Kephart for a 1992 murder and ruled innocent 20 years later after exculpatory evidence was found in the prosecution’s files. In the cases in which Kephart is not named, he is the prosecutor whose misconduct is cited:

  • In 1996, the court noted “several instances of prosecutorial misconduct” in a sexual assault case. The conviction was upheld, but one justice dissented, saying that Kephart had “infected” an already “muddled case” and it warranted reversal. (In 2001, a judge granted the defendant an evidentiary hearing and he was released.)
  • In 1997, the court reversed the murder convictions of two men based entirely on the “deliberate” and “improper comments” made by the prosecution during cross examination and closing argument. The DA’s office had sought the death penalty, which in Nevada increases costs by about a half million dollars on average, making this and other reversals based on Kephart’s behavior expensive screw-ups for taxpayers. (Both men were retried and convicted again in 1998, one sentenced to life in prison and the other to death.)
  • In 2001, in the case he was fined $250, the court said Kephart gave the jury a misleading explanation of the standard for reasonable doubt when he instructed them: “you have a gut feeling he’s guilty, he’s guilty.” A justice said at a hearing that the remark seemed “like deliberate misrepresentation.” The court upheld the conviction, but noted that Kephart’s “improper remark was particularly reprehensible because this is a capital case and the remark was gratuitous and patently inadequate to convey to the jury its duty…”
  • In 2002, the court took issue with Kephart for assaulting a witness. During the trial of a sexual assault case, Kephart said he wanted to demonstrate how the victim said she was choked, pressing his forearm into the defendant’s neck while he was on the stand. The court upheld the verdict, but noted there was “absolutely no reason” for Kephart’s behavior, which went “well beyond the accepted bounds of permissible advocacy.” One justice dissented, saying “the instances of prosecutorial misconduct were pervasive and substantial…an accused who takes the stand runs many risks. One of them should not be that the prosecutor would physically assault him or her.”
  • In 2008, the court tossed out a murder conviction in another death penalty case, saying, among other issues, the prosecution’s misconduct was “significant” and “occurred throughout the trial,” including Kephart’s remarks during jury selection and in closing. One judge dissented, saying the prosecutorial misconduct and other issues didn’t require reversal. (The defendant eventually pled guilty in 2014.)

In 2002, Kephart prosecuted another highly contested murder case against Kirstin Lobato, then 19, which has garnered national outcry for the meager and sometimes contradictory evidence against her. Lobato was recently granted an evidentiary hearing and is represented by the Innocence Project. This month, the prosecuting officer for the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline filed misconduct charges against Kephart for a media interview he gave about the case last year, in which he said it “was completely justice done.” Kephart’s “statements could affect the outcome or impair the fairness of Miss Lobato’s case,” according to the formal statement of charges. The statement said Kephart violated several rules of the judicial code of conduct. He has not yet filed a reply.

Kephart, who joined the DA’s office in the early 1990s as a brash young attorney, once got in a shoving match with a defense attorney. Another time a judge had to admonish him for repeatedly shaking his head, making faces and rolling his eyes. His behavior eventually led to minor reprimands from the Clark County District Attorney’s Office, according to several people who worked with him during that time. In 2002, after Kephart’s reasonable-doubt flub, the entire DA’s office had to complete a two-hour ethics course and continuing legal education classes, which the deputy district attorneys tagged the “Kephart CLE.” That same year, Kephart was briefly banned from trials. Regardless, he later became a chief deputy.

Kephart also was called before the state bar for his behavior in Steese’s murder trial, but, according to lawyers at the hearing, his boss made an appeal on behalf of him and the other prosecutor on the case, and neither was sanctioned.

Kephart declined several requests for comment.

Despite these repeated critiques of his conduct, Kephart was voted onto the bench in 2010 as a justice of the peace and in 2014 moved to the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, where he today he presides over civil, construction and criminal cases.

Update, May 31, 2017: In his official written response to the disciplinary commission, Kephart has denied charges that he violated judicial canons with his remarks to the media about an open case. His response said that he had “participated in interim rehabilitation by taking classes,” and the commission should consider his honest motives, clean judicial disciplinary record, and “character and reputation.”

Megan Rose covers the military for ProPublica. Previously she was the national correspondent at Stars and Stripes.

__________________________________

https://pixel.propublica.org/pixel.js

Read Full Post »

$112.50 to prepare a client’s invoice? Anecdotally, I’ve heard of lawyers charging clients for the time it takes to prepare a client’s bill. But from a client’s perspective, it’s a practice almost guaranteed to piss off a client. The only thing worse would be the lawyer who then charges the client when she calls for an explanation of the bill.1

Back in the olden days, lawyers, particularly the silk-stocking Big Law set may have arguably had a cricket’s crack of justification. In those days, big firms used pencils, prayer beads and abacuses to track hours on written daily time sheets. Accounting departments compiled the time sheets and produced pre-bills for partners to sprinkle with holy water before producing a final bill. That old-fashioned process took time and a lot of holy water.

But too bad for law firms big and small that still want to charge for preparing a bill. For almost 20 years now, lawyers have been able to use timekeeping and billing software to efficiently produce invoices in mere minutes.

Not to say that improved timekeeping and bill preparation necessarily means lower client invoices. After all, lawyers, myself included, are known to invoke the oft-quoted and genuflected Abe Lincoln maxim, “A lawyer’s time and advice are his stock in trade.”

But billing time notwithstanding, it’s not always time and advice lawyers sell to their clients. As Am Law Daily noted in the bankruptcy case of dog-killing pro footballer Michael Vick, his law firm invoiced him for $2.6 million in fees and expenses for 7,200 billable hours of work over ten months. The bill, however, also included the cost of running air conditioning during the weekend; taxi rides home for employees working late; and $1,200 for plane tickets from New York to Kansas. A judge subsequently reduced the bill.

Client push-back and ethical duty.

After a decade of flat wage growth; economic retreat and growing income inequality, consumers are increasingly price and value conscious. Lawyers also face ongoing competitive pressures from brick-and-mortar and online non-lawyer legal services providers.

Forget the arrogant nonsense that clients still have an expectation of getting hosed by their lawyers. Even if clients ever had that expectation, they certainly were never happy about it. When it comes to today’s practice of law, there’s more and more client push-back on fees and greater scrutiny on billing. I think this is a good thing.

As I’ve posted before here and here, when it comes to the reasonableness of attorney’s fees it’s like beauty — in the eye of the beholder. And this even when lawyers are supposed to be ethically guided by objective reasonableness standards under Ethical Rule 1.5.

Yet it’s really not that hard. First, a written attorney-client fee agreement is essential although as most lawyers know, it’s not necessarily the final word. Second, tow the line on the professional duty that lawyers owe their clients, which is to advance the client’s interest under the limits set by law.

1152762_left_hand_silhouette-_womanAs Kathryn Thompson further explains at “Let’s be Reasonable” in The ABA Journal, “A breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship that culminates in the lawyer withdrawing or being discharged frequently sets the stage for violations of Rule 1.5. Lawyers often run afoul of the rule’s reasonableness requirement in the process of terminating the relationship or when defending against disciplinary complaints by the client. In both situations, lawyers sometimes fall into the trap of improperly billing for activities that advance their own interests rather than fulfill their obligation to the client.”

Not often and not always, lawyers do get disciplined for ethics violations involving improper billing practices. For example, Kathryn Thompson also mentions the Indiana lawyer whose suspension was upheld by the state supreme court for among other things, billing his client for time spent reading the client’s representation termination letter and for then billing the client for post-termination work. See Matter of Comstock.

So in the context of billing clients, the better ethical posture is to always ask whether or not the fees charged were reasonably expended to advance the client’s interest — not the lawyer’s. By that measure, weekend air conditioning, taxi rides and bill preparation shouldn’t pass muster.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

[1] And then there’s the worn-out lawyer joke about the new client who comes to see the lawyer. “Can you tell me how much you charge?”, asks the client. “Of course”, the lawyer replies, “I charge $300 to answer three questions!” “Well that’s a bit steep, isn’t it?” “Yes it is”, says the lawyer, “And what’s your third question?”

Photo Credits: Photos from Morguefile.com, no attribution required.

 

Read Full Post »

Wisconsin lawyer Michael Cicchini dropped another provocative “truth bomb” this week at The Legal Watchdog entitled, “The lawyer job market.”

https://i1.wp.com/img.wikinut.com/img/buwi66ndxqe7rzbw/jpeg/0/Talking-with-Hands-Wikimedia-Commons.jpeg

Cicchini posted about how ridiculously difficult it still is for jobless lawyers who are forced to choose self-employment when they’re unable to find full-time paying law firm work. An advertisement he recently received for work at the pleasure of the Racine Circuit Court made his point.

Despite an improving economy, new lawyers face daunting challenges. Blame the continuing glut of lawyers as well as irreversible changes to 21st century client expectations impacting the legal profession’s cost, profit and pricing structures.

While the good news is that the number of persons taking the Law School Admission Test has reached record lows, the transformative economic strictures continue to hold sway.

Preposterously penurious pay.

As for the advertisement Cicchini received, the County Circuit Court in Racine, Wisconsin is looking for an “advocate counsel” and the pay is an unbelievable $25,000 per year. Don’t expect expense reimbursement or job security. It’s terminable at-will.

The ad then goes on to state that “attorneys may be assigned any type of felony [including homicide], misdemeanor, juvenile, criminal traffic, and probate cases and any other action as the court orders . . . It is estimated that there will be about 70 – 80 assignments in 2015 per attorney.” Read the rest of Cicchini’s post here.

The quality of unfairness.

As an experienced criminal defense lawyer, Cicchini properly points out that this kind of caseload is “nearly impossible” for any lawyer — let alone a newbie hoping to do thorough, ethically unimpeachable legal work for clients.

Admittedly, there was more than enough in the court’s advertisement to annoy any lawyer — not the least being the overt professional discourtesy of lawyers trying to screw over other lawyers, i.e., those desperate enough to apply for such a demanding job at such penurious pay.

And who were the one’s being so discourteous? Cicchini speculates “this proposal was presumably authored with input from the Racine County judges themselves.”

But beyond exploiting economically hard-pressed young lawyers, there’s another even more disturbing consideration. What does this job say about exacerbating the continuing disparities of justice meted out to indigent defendants by overburdened, under-resourced public defenders? Studies have amply demonstrated that “public defenders do not have enough time to conduct thorough investigations, or meet with and provide quality representation for their clients – many of whom are low-income earners and people of color.” See, for instance, System Overload: The Costs of Under-Resourcing Public Defense.”

Ethical hazards.

But beyond the above-mentioned concerns, it was the potential ethical minefields created by the job that also got my dander up. As one commentator observed, “the deck is stacked” against solos as it is. Writing at “Ethical Hazards of Solo and Small Firm Practice,” Benjamin Cowgill axiomatically notes that nationwide, solos and small firms bear the brunt of most bar complaints. One reason, among many, arises from their chosen areas of practice, criminal defense being one of the riskier.

So what does this lousy job in Racine with its heavy caseload at rock-bottom pay say about how far ethical concerns are discounted in Cheesehead Land?

Politics Law & Finance 43Just a few years ago the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran an excellent comprehensive investigative report about the sorry state of Wisconsin’s attorney discipline system. The newspaper reviewed almost 24,000 Wisconsin lawyers against state and federal court records and “found that lawyers who are convicted of crimes are then subjected to a slow-moving disciplinary system that operates largely behind closed doors.” It went on to underscore the patently obvious that “Wisconsin appears to be comparatively lenient in dealing with lawbreaking lawyers.

“Unlike many other states, where the licenses of lawyers convicted of serious crimes such as fraud are immediately suspended to give regulators time to determine the proper sanction, Wisconsin sometimes allows criminals to keep their law licenses even while they are behind bars.”

Hilariously hubristic hypocrisy.

So front and center comes this challenging low-paying job in Racine that just reeks of potential ethical hazard for the unwary and overburdened.

And yet, maybe I’m overstating the hazard? After all, it appears not much has changed since 2011, at least when it comes to lawyer discipline in Wisconsin. Indeed, earlier this summer there was a lawyer discipline case reported by “The Legal Profession Blog” ironically highlighting “Calls to Reform Wisconsin Attorney Discipline” made by none other than Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamsom and Justice David Prosser. Given the facts of that case, both expressed agreement on the need to study and reform the Wisconsin attorney discipline system.

But here was the irony and the not insignificant brass. Along with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, the Wisconsin high court has hardly been an exemplar of professional comportment.
Some 6 months after the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran its investigative series on the state’s embarrassing absence of meaningful attorney discipline, Justice Bradley made headline-grabbing allegations involving her purported physical altercation with Justice Prosser. See “Bradley says Prosser choked her.”

But after all the he-said/she-said, no criminal charges were ever filed although Justice Prosser did get charged with ethics violations. However, lo and behold and consistent with how things apparently roll in Wisconsin, multiple recusals led to no quorum, which meant no determination of discipline could be made against Justice Prosser. So, the charges were dropped. Later the same year, he eked out a 7,006 reelection win over Joanne Kloppenburg.

And so he sits on the high bench in 2014 opining along with his chief justice who he previously disrespected about how Wisconsin’s attorney discipline system needs reform.

__________________________________________________________________

Photo Credits: Talking with Hands, Wikimedia Commons; Half the pay, twice the work by Truthout.org at Flickr via Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License; Defense Counsel by Matt Freedman at Flickr, Attribution; bad jpg file in encrypted folder by Mike at Flickr via Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

Read Full Post »

Last October, I reblogged a post by Indiana lawyer Paul Ogden who was then facing a one-year suspension for a private email criticizing a judge.

File:1849 - Karikatur Die unartigen Kinder.jpg

Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Ogden’s troubles, however, were bigger than just the possibility that as a politically active lawyer with an unblemished 27-year legal career, he might suffer potentially career-destroying sanctions. No, Ogden’s case was really about another attempt by attorney disciplinary authorities to further muzzle attorney free speech.

It was about how much more an ethical rule can be broadened to spank lawyers for their opinions about judges under Ethical Rule 8.2, which says, in part, “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.”

https://i2.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Two_monks_working_in_the_blacksmith_shop_at_Mission_Santa_Barbara%2C_ca.1900_%28CHS-4070%29.jpg/319px-Two_monks_working_in_the_blacksmith_shop_at_Mission_Santa_Barbara%2C_ca.1900_%28CHS-4070%29.jpg

Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

And it was also about a lawyer disciplinary commission with the unbridled temerity to hammer and tong a lawyer with the nerve to persistently criticize it.

The Court decides.

LAW AND JUSTICE uidThis past Monday the Indiana Supreme Court handed down its decision In the Matter of Paul K. Ogden. And while the vocal Hoosier gadfly ended up getting disciplined, it was still a good outcome for Ogden.

The case against him was originally brought in March 2013 because of comments he made in private correspondence about Judge David H. Coleman, a special judge appointed in an unsupervised estate case where Ogden was representing one of the interested parties.

As to the First Count of the Charge, in the words of the Court, Ogden’s “repeated and virulent accusations that Judge Coleman committed malfeasance in the initial stages of the administration of the Estate were not just false; they were impossible because Judge Coleman was not even presiding over the Estate at this time—a fact Respondent could easily have determined. Because Respondent lacked any objectively reasonable basis for (these) statements, we conclude that Respondent made these statements in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity, thus violating Rule 8.2(a)in Count 1, the aggravating facts convince us that a mere reprimand is insufficient discipline in this case.”

As to the remaining Second Count concerning alleged ex-parte communications to Marion County judges to follow recently outlined forfeiture law, the Court ruled the disciplinary commission had not met its burden that Ogden’s letters to the judges were “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”

Caucasian businessman pointing finger beside window uidThe Court instead found professional misconduct only with respect to Ogden’s statements about Judge Coleman. And so it ordered a 30-day suspension starting August 5, 2014 and assuming he keeps his nose clean, at its conclusion, the Court approved automatic reinstatement.

Speaking objectively — despite the sanction, I think it’s a win for Ogden. The Court unanimously found misconduct only concerning the First Count. It imposed only a 30-day suspension with automatic reinstatement — instead of the one-year suspension without automatic readmission that the Commission wanted.

File:Freespeech.jpg

Wikimedia Commons/Luis Ricardo/GNU Free Documentation License.

Vulnerable attorneys.

A few days after, at Disbarring the Critics, Ogden also understandably cast the outcome in a positive light. The perils he’d faced had been daunting.

But all the same, Ogden was disappointed “the Court failed to distinguish between public and private communications, thereby leaving attorneys vulnerable to having their private emails and conversations scoured for Rule 8.2 violations for judicial criticism.”

On a more hopeful note in his post, The Indiana Supreme Court Hands Down Decision,” he added: “Attorneys from across the country are wanting an attorney free speech case to go before the United States Supreme Court to curtail states use of disciplinary rules to target attorney speech critical of judges. I think it’s inevitable that’s going to happen as the U.S. Supreme Court seems to have a keen interest in free speech cases and there seems to be no support among conservatives or liberals on the Court for the types of professional sanctions states are imposing on attorneys for judicial criticism.”

Obstreperous meets obdurate.

Ogden also remains convinced the Indiana Disciplinary Commission overcharged and overprosecuted him for no other reason than his unrelenting criticism of its doings. Optimistically, then, he hopes his case will be “a catalyst” for investigating the Commission’s conduct “and for much-needed reform to the attorney disciplinary process.”

While I wish him well, I don’t know whether such optimism is realistic. The forces arrayed against him are formidable. The Commission is an agency and arm of the Indiana Supreme Court.

Case in point, despite his well-founded longstanding complaints about the Commission’s conduct, the Court adopted its agency’s view that Ogden had been “obstreperous.” Obstreperous is a $10 word meaning stubbornly resistant to control as in “unmanageable.”

Laughing Jackass 10952161246Using my own $9.99 word, if Ogden’s unruly then I think the Commission has been obdurate meaning stubbornly resistant to change. But operating apparently without meaningful oversight or transparency, why should it conduct itself any differently?

Read Full Post »

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/Golf_ball_5.jpg/320px-Golf_ball_5.jpgA couple of Saturdays ago, we were paired up on the golf course with a happy wise-cracking guy who turned out to be a presiding judge in another jurisdiction. I won’t mention where he was from but let’s just say, he was one happy hombre hitting white dimpled balls in the sunshine while his cold snap compadres back home were freezing theirs.

He was also a much better duffer than me which, of course is no big deal since I set the bar pretty low on the golf course. But I especially liked his bracing candor and absence of pomposity particularly when referring to his day job. His ‘hail fellow well met’ attitude was refreshing. Ah, but then again, we were basking on a sunny Arizona golf course. Who knows what he’s like back home? But at least he wasn’t like Judge Spaulding Smails!

Nonetheless giving him the benefit of the doubt, mid-round I commended the long-time jurist for having successfully inoculated himself from black robe disease — and for not asking me to kiss his ring. Hearing my good-natured razzing, he laughed and smote his Pro-V-1 down the middle of the fairway.

And with that I segue to less berobbed congeniality in the following updates:

From the slapping the spanker file.

Remember Texas Judge William Adams who lost it in more ways than one? For those who forgot, he was the jurist suspended for a year after his daughter, Hillary, posted an embarrassing angry belt-whipping video online. Judge Adams was the belter and Hillary was the beltee. Well, add one more loss for the now ex-jurist. Following enough mea culpas, Judge Adams had been reinstated by the Texas Supremes in November 2012. But thing was, that video followed him around like the proverbial tin can tied to a cat’s tail. So thanks to getting caught beating his daughter on the video, he lost re-election last month. Chalk one up for prudent voters slapping down an ill-advised reelection bid. And give credit to much-maligned judicial elections, which now and then do somehow manage to impose some semblance of accountability courtesy of the voters.
Meanwhile back in Texas, remember Judge William Adams who lost it in more ways than one? For those who forgot, he was the jurist suspended for a year after his daughter, Hillary, posted a video online of the belt-whipping he administered. Well, add one more loss for the ex-jurist. The judge who was reinstated by the Texas Supremes in November 2012 after he was caught beating his daughter on video lost re-election in March. Chalk one up for voters slapping down an ill-advised reelection bid. And chalk up one for much-maligned judicial election voter accountability.
body parts,Buddhism,feet,footprints,religion,religious symbols,toes,visitations

From the foot massages no more file.

Sadly at only age 56, former Clark County, Nevada District Court Judge Elizabeth Halverson passed away March 1, 2014. She’ll be remembered for a lot of things, including the stuff that led to the imposition of judicial discipline. In particular, I’ll recall her former bailiff Johnnie Jordan’s affidavit where he said the judge had ordered him “to massage her feet, neck and shoulders, or some combination of those body parts.”  Also see “Foot massages no more. Nevada Supreme Court reaffirms district court judge’s permanent removal.”

From the shame in his game file.

photoAnd finally it turns out there was more than a little shame in the game of Wayne County, Michigan Circuit Judge Wade H. McCree Jr.

At least more than enough to convince the Michigan Supreme Court to hand down an order dated March 26, 2014 to remove from the bench the self-professed “No shame in my game” judge with a hankering for old-school R & B; inappropriate liaisons in chambers; and bare-chested texts.

_________________________________________________________________

From the more FREE CLE file.

With the usual disclaimers about content, continued availability and jurisdictional approval find the following:

Practising Law Institute

9:00 AM -12:30 PM (Pacific)

How to Find and Handle Your First Pro Bono Case 2014

Free  
Register Now

___________________________________________________________

National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA)

Studio71 Webcasts NITA – National Institute for Trial Advocacy

http://www.nita.org/index.php?option=com_dtregister&view=event&layout=list&controller=event&task=category&list1=9&tab=webcasts

Miscellaneous Topics – Free & Online

For example,

  • Effective Handling & Use of Exhibits at Trial: How to Look Cool & Be Persuasive Using Stuff at Trial

May 20, 2014

___________________________________________________________

CRITELLILAW

http://www.critellilaw.com/

CritelliLaw Mediation WorkShop Webinar

Apr 17, 2014 to Apr 18, 2014

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM CDT

Register Now at:  https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/194303361

CritelliLaw Litigation WorkShop Webinar

Noon  May 6,7, and 8th 2014.   3 Hrs FREE CLE

Register Now at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/110472208

___________________________________________________________

LexisNexis

LexisNexis® presents a Complimentary CLE-Accredited* Webinar: Cutting Through the Noise: Practical Guidance on Administering Obamacare & Other Health Plans

Length: 95 Minutes

Date: 04/22/2014

Time: 2:00 PM (EDT)

___________________________________________________________

US Legal Journal

http://www.uslegaljournal.com/?page_id=87

FREE MCLE COURSE | US Legal Journal

Navigating the Ethical Minefield of Social Media for California Attorneys

_________________________________________________________________

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »