Move along, sir.
Todd C. Bank is having a rough week and we’re not even to Friday yet. The Queens-based attorney found himself getting escorted out of the Second Circuit by security while a judge repeatedly told him to leave. Astoundingly, this isn’t even the only faceplant he’s had at a federal appellate court this week.
The oral argument in Doyle v. Palmer, a matter involving attorney Robert Doyle’s objection to having to submit a good character affidavit to be admitted to the Eastern District of New York, which despite being par for the course in this business, Doyle feels violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, as well as the First Amendment. That set up this exchange between Bank, Doyle’s attorney, and the Second Circuit panel. For some excerpts…
I am not defending Bank’s behavior here, and the whole case is kind of stupid, but he is right that the briefs addressed this question. The question is: “why would an attorney complain about having to produce a potentially negative character affidavit when the attorney gets full control over whether or not to hand in the affidavit?” And he provided an answer:
This argument ignores the delay, in being admitted to the bar, that an Applicant would endure if he were to seek one potential Sponsor after another until (if ever) he finds a Sponsor who approves of his moral character (that an Applicant of poor moral character may continue to seek a Sponsor until he finds one who likes him enough to be his Sponsor or is of equally poor character (likely the same person), and who will therefore likely see his fellow wretch, that is, the Applicant, as a morally upstanding person, reveals the farcical nature of the Affidavit Requirement).
Sure. But bad character folks should have to work harder and suffer more delays because of their issues and getting unreliable affidavits from sketchy people then becomes something the court can consider. It’s not a rubber stamp as much as it may feel like it for students strolling out of their T14 lectures.
Still, most folks would welcome an opportunity to talk more about their briefs rather than blast the judge. And while there are exceptions where judges are so unprofessionally megalomaniacal that they earn some snark, inviting an advocate to take a few minutes to explain the basic premise of the case isn’t one of those times.
After being scolded for unprofessional behavior, Bank tried to deliver a rebuttal and when he wouldn’t take the fact that he’d waived his rebuttal for an answer, security was told to escort him out.
One of the judges on the panel was Judge Robert D. Sack, who must have felt some sense of déjà vu since he found himself affirming a ruling about Bank’s professionalism eight years ago. Back then, Bank lodged a number of constitutional complaints over not being able to wear a baseball cap in court while arguing that it was unfair that court employees could wear yarmulkes but others couldn’t wear hats.
Earlier in the week, Bank saw another appeal tossed when the Federal Circuit decided that no, in fact, you can’t challenge someone’s intellectual property rights just because you don’t like them. Bank had challenged the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision that Al Johnson’s Swedish Restaurant & Butik in Wisconsin had a trade dress interest in the idea of keeping goats on a grass roof because, Bank felt, this was demeaning to the goats. The court felt that this didn’t give a Queens attorney any standing.
If we could offer any advice to Bank right now, it would be to maybe lay off the appellate cases for the rest of the week. Go visit a goat farm and just chill.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.