It’s been a while since I’ve had a “what were they thinking?” post. I wasn’t thinking about writing one now, but I couldn’t resist, given the plethora of gaffes from the merely stupid to the absolutely outrageous and deserving of discipline.
Let’s start with the judge who asked an alleged rape victim whether she had closed her legs. No, he wasn’t joking, and of course, it was a male judge who asked the question. I think that any female judge would have known better than to humiliate an alleged sexual assault victim. And I didn’t know whether there is such a thing as the “closed legs” defense in a rape case. Would an “open legs” defense be better? The judicial ethics board has recommended that the judge be removed, based not only on this incident, as egregious as it is on its own, but also on other prior incidents. Shame on him, but why with “priors,” so to speak, wasn’t he woodshedded previously?
Then there’s the judge in New York who has resigned and agreed to never seek judicial office again, the death penalty sanction. He had been judge of the year in 2018. Oops. Why did he resign? Apparently, he created a hostile work environment, not just recently, but since he had taken the bench years ago. What the hell took so long? (I know, I know, fear of job loss, retaliation, and other similar reasons.) It wasn’t just a case of being asleep at the Rip Van Winkle switch for the conduct to have gone on for so long without any consequences. Finally, someone or more than one someone woke up. Better late than never.
Although not a judge, and unlikely to ever be one, Michael Avenatti, ATL’s 2018 Lawyer of the Year (everyone makes mistakes, even ATL) is now in court, not as a lawyer, but defendant. (Karma is a bitch.) Whatever happens in New York will not be the end of Avenatti’s legal troubles. He faces trial this spring in Orange County (we like to call it the “O.C. ”) for embezzlement and tax fraud.
The State Bar is breathing heavily down his neck, having filed disciplinary charges. Will the outcome of the various criminal proceedings determine what kind of discipline the State Bar will impose? Unlikely, as the State Bar’s mission is public protection.
Memo to self: don’t lift language from confirmation hearings of United States Supreme Court nominees without attribution. Sounds simple, right? An Arizona lawyer has been reprimanded for lifting quotes in her application for a seat on the state’s court of appeal. The quotes were from Justices Samuel Alito and Neal Gorsuch. Reading what she lifted, the sentiments expressed in those quotes are not unique to those two nominees or any other judicial candidate. Couldn’t she have rephrased them in her own words? She’s since withdrawn her application.
You youngsters probably don’t remember Zoe Baird and the Nannygate issue that derailed her nomination as Attorney General for Bill Clinton. Much the same happened to Clinton’s second nominee, Kimba Wood. Janet Reno had no kids and no Nannygate issue, so she became Clinton’s attorney general.
In Montana, a judge faces accusations about the truthfulness of her legal employment and her nanny’s employment, the latter being the pretty much the same issue that precluded both Baird and Wood from the Attorney General’s gig.
Is Nannygate an issue that only attaches to women lawyers?I Googled the term “male lawyers Nanny Gate” and found that almost all references were to women lawyers, but several prominent men were caught in Nannygate years ago.
Since women have the bulk of the majority for child care, care for aging/infirm parents, and any and all other cares named or unnamed, it’s not surprising that one of the main reasons that women leave Biglaw is that these kinds of cares are almost always the exclusive territory of the women. Nothing new there. Will there ever be? Childcare Commitments Are Driving Women Out of Big Law | The American Lawyer
We all make stupid mistakes, maybe not criminal, but stupid, thoughtless, and with the ability to put our feet in our mouths — one of the few things I have had no trouble doing since infancy. Perhaps if we could just keep our mouths closed until we have something of value to say and not just something that we think it cute or funny or au courant.
If there was only a device that would allow us to eat our words before we could speak them, a sort of implanted word shredder, a self-censoring Twitter. We might be a whole lot better off, and perhaps a whole lot less disciplined.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.