Another law professor is siding with fellow attorney and blogger Paul Ogden in the efforts of the Indiana Attorney Disciplinary Commission to suspend him from the practice of law for criticizing a judge's handling of a probate case in a private e-mail. John Marshall Law School Professor Alberto Bernabe comments on Ogden's case at his
Professional Responsibility Blog:
The commission apparently told the attorney he could forgo the possible disciplinary proceeding if he apologized for the comment but the attorney refused and decided to fight the charge instead. I applaud him for this decision because the commission is clearly acting unconstitutionally here. The attorney has the right to express his opinion about the judge and if that statement is what the commission is basing its position on, it does not have any valid basis for imposing sanctions. I hope the Indiana Supreme Court does the right thing here and sends the commission (and the judge) packing.
Ironically, apparently the commission has argued as an aggravating factor that the attorney "believes he is superior to the courts and the law.” Yet, it is the commission which apparently believes its power is superior to the attorney's first amendment protected right to express his opinion.
Hat tip to Ted Waggoner at
Lawyers With Troubles. Previously, nationally-respected George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley expressed support for Ogden in a blog post
here.
5 comments:
"The commission apparently told the attorney he could forgo the possible disciplinary proceeding if he apologized for the comment but the attorney refused and decided to fight the charge instead. I applaud him for this decision because the commission is clearly acting unconstitutionally here."
There is a mixup here. The Commission never told me that. Rather Judge Coleman made the statement that if I apologized he would never have reported me to the disciplinary commission. However, in our exchange of correspondence in which Judge Coleman demanded I apologize, he never claimed I had violated a disciplinary rule and never said he'd report me to the disciplinary commission if I didn't apologize.
Frankly, I had never in my wildest imagination contemplated that a private email criticizing a judge would result in a disciplinary charge. Rather the only reason I considered apologizing at all was not a possible disciplinary charge, but that I might have to go before Judge Coleman in some other matter.
Like I said a while back, and I'm very rarely wrong, getting this case in the 7th Circuit would be highly embarrassing for Indiana.
They'd look like small-town yokels with thin skins who can't handle big league criticism. Posner is regularly and publicly both praised and excoriated, so he sits in a position to teach Indiana a few lessons about suffering catcalls from the cheap seats.
Chicago is always itching to teach a thing, or two, to the minor league teams.
Indiana is playing a very risky game, if Ogden has the guts to play chicken with them. Plus, Chicago likes guys who stand up for themselves, especially against bullies.
There's a difference between criticizing a judge's legal reasoning
abilities and making personal comments about the judge.
Is it permissible to tell a client that based on observation a particular judge tends to be
pro-consumer oriented or
pro-business oriented, for example, or inconsistent or unpredictable or should attorneys refrain from offering opinions to their clients when their clients ask?
I should clarify that Coleman said for the very first time in an interview with the Indiana Lawyer, after the charges had been filed, that I could have avoided the disciplinary action if I had simply apologized. But Coleman had never even alleged to me before he went to the Disciplinary Commission that I had violated a disciplinary rule. I had no idea that he would claim that...and who would have thought he would have? It was a private email containing criticism that wasn't even made public.
Anonymous has opinions but never shares a case with us. Likely a non attorney, all hat, no cattle.
Post a Comment