- of persons and property
- preserving public confidence in reputation of the bar;
- preserving public confidence in reputation of the judiciary
- protecting legal consumers;
- protecting lawyers and judges FROM legal consumers, because protection of reputation of the bar is carried out by rules that impose gags on attorney speech as insiders criticizing judicial misconduct
- a class of private professionals;
- the "legal system"
In other words, New York State Judiciary (because the Commission was formed by Chief Judge Lippman and consists of a lot of judges as its members) claimed in the Report that one of the legitimate goals of occupational licensing - BY the judiciary - is to protect reputation of the branch of the government that regulates attorneys' livelihood.
- through attorney discipline;
- through court-created "rules of frivolous conduct", arbitrarily applied only to civil rights attorneys;
- through arbitrary application of fraud upon the court statutes exclusively against civil rights attorneys and attorneys who criticize judicial misconduct.
Yet, here am I, an attorney and part of a long-existing and ever growing class of attorneys who are sanctioned for criticizing judicial misconduct.
I am waiting when the fresh winds from Kentucky and U.S. Supreme Court will get through the heads of New York state judges.
And I hope against hope that I will see invalidation of sanctions upon attorneys for criticizing judges during my lifetime.
After all, the "legal system" is already effectively protecting its reputation, by giving to itself a gift of absolute judicial immunity for malicious and corrupt acts and judicial disciplinary commissions consisting of judges and lawyers regulated by judges who will never pursue a judge for fear of their own livelihood, which is applied in the following way:
“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.
And, after all, it's time to remove attorneys from the grip of free speech-quashing regulation that was condemned by a Pennsylvania judge 135 years ago, before it was even born:
“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).