Tuesday was Groundhog Day; every February 2, Punxsutawney Phil sticks his head up out his hiding place to proclaim whether winter is almost over or there will be another six weeks of it. Given that Pennsylvania, along with other locations, is digging out from a massive snowstorm, I wondered if Phil would even bother to poke his head out, but he did and there’s another six weeks of winter still to go.
The pandemic has lasted for almost a year and there is no quick end to the monotony. Many, if not all, of us are suffering from Groundhog Day syndrome, that every day is pretty much the same and looks to be that way for the foreseeable future; it doesn’t help that the whole vaccination procedure has been totally FUBAR.
As a diversion, here are several stories of colleagues behaving badly. They should take your mind off your troubles and make you glad that you don’t have any of these problems. Careers have gone up (down?) in flames when they didn’t think.
If you ever harbor aspirations to the bench, here’s the cautionary story of Justice Jeffrey Johnson of the Second District Court of Appeal here in Los Angeles, a justice who lost his way. The California Commission on Judicial Performance, after extensive evidence and hearings, removed Justice Johnson from the bench for incidents of misconduct, sexual harassment, and other behavior not befitting a judicial officer. Johnson appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which let stand the Commission’s order of removal.
The Commission’s decision to remove the justice was clearly the right decision, as it was his conduct that led to the removal. Did he, like Icarus, fly too close to the sun?
Johnson is the first appellate justice to be removed from the bench. There have been other justices here in California who have resigned, retired, whatever name you choose, especially when their behavior was scrutinized closely after the rise of the long overdue MeToo movement, which has empowered women to speak up and speak out.
Some recent examples of lawyers behaving badly: the Tennessee Supreme Court suspended an attorney for advice he gave on Facebook. As alert readers know, I am not a fan of social media, one reason being ethical issues that arise.
The Tennessee Supreme Court doesn’t like social media use when it leads an attorney to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The first line of the Court’s opinion gets right to the heart of the dilemma of attorneys using social media. “This case is a cautionary tale on the ethical problems that can befall lawyers on social media.”
The attorney gave advice to a Facebook “friend” who was seeking advice, essentially, on how to get away with murder. (Where is Viola Davis when you need her?) The attorney suggested that the friend delete the Facebook thread. And how many might have seen the thread before its purported deletion?
The court acknowledged “there is nothing wrong with lawyers participating in social media. Indeed, much good can come of it. Lawyers can establish an online presence, engage in their communities, show their personalities and interests outside the law, develop relationships on social-media platforms, and market their legal services. Lawyers participating in social media can do much to de-mystify the legal system.”
However, the court reminded attorneys that they are still bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct. It found that the attorney’s advice promoted exactly the wrong image of the legal profession and the administration of justice as “something to be manipulated, rather than respected.” The court said that the attorney’s “comments, posted for all the world to see, depict lawyers as fixers who manufacture fake defenses to evade criminal conviction.”
Does giving advice on Facebook or other social media create an attorney/client relationship? What do you think?
A Florida lawyer’s online posts got him disbarred, as well they should have. He was already on suspension at the time.
Witchcraft, satanism, and threats were outrageous posts the attorney made. Sexism still ran rampant through them when the attorney called one judge a “dumb satanic slut,” and bar counsel as inept and worthless and a “satanic slut.” The attorney also said that the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court should be executed for allegedly tolerating hate crimes and witchcraft. Double, double, toil and trouble, which is exactly what this lawyer got.
A Texas judge hammered both a lawyer and his client for $150,000 (not a typo) for sanctions arising from their conduct in a foreclosure lawsuit.
The lawyer filed a lawsuit that had no basis in fact. (Has that ever happened to you?) The attorney never did his due diligence in investigating the facts before filing the lawsuit, even though that’s his job. Newbies: don’t just take what your client tells you as the truth. It often isn’t and even if it’s largely truthful, clients just naturally shade the truth for the sake of how they appear. It’s a normal human trait to want to position yourself in the best possible light.
The Texas court found that the lawsuit was an abuse of the judicial process and that the abuses were willful and deliberate in an effort to perpetuate a fraud on the court. The court said that the case was a “mountain of evasiveness, lack of candor, concealment, numerous outright lies, and a total disregard for truth, which is the foundation of our judicial system.” A well-deserved benchslap here.
Take comfort that there are lawyers out there who behave badly and bear the consequences. Remember that even in these monotonous times, you still need to observe the rules.
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.