Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘unconstitutional’

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.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

https://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/6815/SteveLambert-Jamie-O-Shea-Reaching.pngAfter kicking the can around for 3 years, the State Bar of Arizona finally submitted a petition to the state supreme court that no one besides Bar insiders was asking for.

The Bar wants to amend the Oath of Admission to the Bar and the Lawyer’s Creed of Professionalism. The petition has been circulated for public comments due back October 28, 2016.

Since rule changes occur mostly under-the-radar without fanfare, revisions to the oath and creed will probably go into effect with few discouraging words.

Why the Arizona Bar felt the need to amend the oath and creed is a good question. The stated reason was a desire “to harmonize” the oath with the Arizona Loyalty Oath of Office and with a supreme court rule. As for the creed, the Bar said the proposed changes “reflect additional areas of emphasis as the result of practical experience since the creed was originally adopted.”

For the record, Arizona’s lawyer creed was adopted May 19, 1989. It’s already been amended twice, including September 19, 2003 and May 20, 2005. This latest petition will make 3 amendments.

I don’t know how many other states have enacted let alone so frequently amended their own lawyer creeds meant ostensibly to legislate professionalism and civility for a stubbornly adversarial profession.

Over 30 years ago such creeds became all the rage. State bars around the country imposed these creeds in a daunting attempt to stem the public’s falling respect for lawyers. You tell me if it’s worked. A 2014 Princeton University study found lawyers continue to rank below nearly every other profession and occupation in trustworthiness.

hug yourselfBut whether something works or not is of little import to bureaucrats invested in telling the rest of us how to act and think. Rules and systems change. Initiatives are implemented. Programs are rolled out. But little is done after to quantifiably measure or objectively evaluate whether goals are met or programs succeed. But if feel-good bromides be the music of success, then play on. Nothing tops the self-congratulation of non-achievement.

And something else you can always count on is for bureaucracies to overreach their authority. So ‘aye, there’s the rub’ with this petition. It tinkers, tampers and trespasses on public interests and lawyer rights.

I won’t get into all the objections but highlight the principal ones as follows:

Courtroom 32One proposed change to the oath adds “and laws” to “I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona.”

Article 6 Section 26 – Oath of office of the Arizona Constitution states judges must support the Constitution of the United States and of Arizona — but does not mention “laws.” Arguably, this is because judges sometimes overturn laws and therefore ought not be so proscribed by an Oath of Office. Relatedly, lawyers sometimes challenge certain laws as facially unconstitutional or unconstitutional as-applied. Indeed, in those circumstances lawyers argue such unconstitutional laws should not be obeyed. Consequently, lawyers, too, should not be required to swear an oath to “laws” they don’t believe are constitutional.

The petition also exchanges “unprofessional” conduct for “offensive” conduct in the creed. The proposed new language goes beyond what the court already defines as “unprofessional” conduct in ER 8.4. Misconduct.

This hints at a hidden agenda. It morphs into a brand new mandate ER 8.4’s ethical proscriptions against bias and prejudice that are actually “prejudicial to the administration of justice” and that adversely affect fitness to practice or seriously interfere with the proper and efficient operation of the judicial system. The new requirement instead goes beyond settled rule intent and interpretation. In truth, it’s an entirely new departure intruding on lawyers’ professional autonomy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. As a consequence, it subjects lawyers to discipline for engaging in conduct that neither adversely affects the attorney’s fitness to practice law nor seriously interferes with the proper and efficient operation of the judicial system.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/DredScott.jpg/169px-DredScott.jpg

Dredd Scott  via Wikipedia Commons, public domain

And last, the addition of “and respectful to” to no. 11 of the creed, “I will at all times be candid with, and respectful to, the tribunal” seems to place respect to the tribunal over duty to the client or justice. As a colleague recently wrote to me after citing instances where tribunals were sorely wrong from Buck v. Bell to Dred Scott v. Sandford to Plessy v. Ferguson to Korematsu v. United States, “Lawyers have to not be afraid to criticize the government, judges and prosecutors when they are abusing their powers as well. We cannot fear discipline because we spoke truth to power.”

Absent a prejudicial effect on the administration of justice, you expect lawyers to retain free speech rights even when engaging in professional activities and especially life activities outside the practice of law. But efforts to broaden and censure lawyer speech and conduct when the prohibited speech and conduct do not have a prejudicial effect on the administration of justice threaten those rights. They raise serious First Amendment issues subject to constitutional challenge.

Not to mention that the words “and respectful to” are also void for vagueness since they are undefined. Due process requires that an enactment is void for vagueness if what it prohibits is not clearly defined. Worse yet, these words would operate to chill the exercise of First Amendment freedoms by preempting and even muzzling speech and conduct lest boundaries not clearly marked are crossed.

And even more worrisome is the probability that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement will follow without explicit standards for those who apply them. As it is, lawyers here already opine the Arizona Bar enforces its ethical rules on an ad hoc and subjective basis. Vague terms like these only serve to compound these opinions. And they heighten attendant apprehensions of continued arbitrary and discriminatory application.

Read Full Post »