f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

March 10, 2004

Without Secret Lawyer Discipline

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 9:30 pm

there wouldn’t be silly cases like this.  (“Panel Halts Probe of NY Attorney
Who Disclosed Another Lawyer’s Disciplinary Record,” New York Law Journal, by John Caher, 03-10-04)


4 Comments

  1. The issue of confidentiality in disciplinary hearings has been addressed in Minnesota. In fact, it is another example of the intolerance to ideological dissent among the Minnesota bar. In one case, a judge publicized a complaint he made against a lawyer, by name. The ultimate result of the case was a private reprimand. Because of the judge, though, the discipline was hardly “private.”
    http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/03bbarts/bb0203.html

    In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert. on a case about free speech for judicial candidates. Meanwhile, ethics charges were secretly pending against one of the litigants on the very same issue that the Court was considering. Not only did he face a possible loss at the Supreme Court, but a retaliatory ethics complaint, as well. In that case, it was to the lawyer’s benefit to publicize the retaliatory ethics complaint.

    http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/fc01/fc012201.html

    Not to mention the situation documented at http://www.biasbattle.com where an attorney wrote to the Board of Continuing Legal Education that he was considering filing ethics charges against the “sponsors and participants” of the lone conservative “Elimination of Bias” CLE course.

    Comment by Peter Swanson — March 14, 2004 @ 5:59 pm

  2. The issue of confidentiality in disciplinary hearings has been addressed in Minnesota. In fact, it is another example of the intolerance to ideological dissent among the Minnesota bar. In one case, a judge publicized a complaint he made against a lawyer, by name. The ultimate result of the case was a private reprimand. Because of the judge, though, the discipline was hardly “private.”
    http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/03bbarts/bb0203.html

    In another case, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert. on a case about free speech for judicial candidates. Meanwhile, ethics charges were secretly pending against one of the litigants on the very same issue that the Court was considering. Not only did he face a possible loss at the Supreme Court, but a retaliatory ethics complaint, as well. In that case, it was to the lawyer’s benefit to publicize the retaliatory ethics complaint.

    http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/fc01/fc012201.html

    Not to mention the situation documented at http://www.biasbattle.com where an attorney wrote to the Board of Continuing Legal Education that he was considering filing ethics charges against the “sponsors and participants” of the lone conservative “Elimination of Bias” CLE course.

    Comment by Peter Swanson — March 14, 2004 @ 5:59 pm

  3. Here’s my post on the subject:

    http://599to1.blogspot.com/#107930562592665479

    Comment by Peter Swanson — March 14, 2004 @ 6:08 pm

  4. Here’s my post on the subject:

    http://599to1.blogspot.com/#107930562592665479

    Comment by Peter Swanson — March 14, 2004 @ 6:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress