When a disciplinary proceeding is filed against you, it is scary. Many attorneys with whom I confidentially discussed my husband's proceedings, based on the farce of the Mokay case I described in this blog, and about my own disciplinary proceedings, based on retaliative actions of a judge whom I sued, gave me "big eyes" and stated that disciplinary proceedings are so scary they do not want to know anything about them.
Yet, to learn "on the go", when such proceedings already became a reality, is scarier. And every bit of information as to how to fight these modern day Torquemadas might help.
In the recent decision in my husband's federal pro se civil rights proceeding Neroni v. Coccoma I found a gem of a case that may help attorneys currently involved in a New York State disciplinary proceeding shape their arguments that such proceedings are unconstitutional.
It is amazing what kind of treasure lays around for years (the case is from 1975) and is not given proper regard by attorneys. Probably, it is exactly because attorneys are so scared of disciplinary proceedings, they are afraid to fight for their rights, and instead try to concede points and plead to something, no matter whether they are guilty or not, in order to preserve the "prize" - the attorney license.
Ok, in 1975, that is 39 years ago (!) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in a case Anonymous v. Association of the Bar of City of New York
515 F.2d 427
C.A.N.Y. 1975 -
gave immunity to attorneys for the prosecuting disciplinary body - Committee for Professional Conduct (COPS) - because - wait - the Committee is an arm of the court. The pinpoint page for this "pearl of wisdom" within the case is 433. The federal court equated COPS being an "arm of the court" with a special master in federal proceedings.
In fact, a federal master is something entirely different - it is an adjudicator appointed on consent of parties, not a prosecutor pursuing an attorney clearly against his or her consent. But, when a court wants, in a quick decision, without much bother, attain a needed end, especially when it knows that to get a certiorari review from the U.S. Supreme Court is nearly impossible - the court allows itself to be sloppy.
Now, please tell me, ladies and gentlemen, how can a court where investigators and prosecutors are "part of the court", be considered a true court, instead of a court-advocate?
And how would adjudications of a court blended with prosecutors and investigators and necessarily ruling for them, be deemed constitutionally valid?
Just a thought...
As I said before, it is time for attorneys who are either improperly disciplined or improperly targeted for discipline, to unite in action.
And, based on Anonymous that I cited above, I would suggest not only activities toward a legislative action, but a federal class action.
No comments:
Post a Comment