Apparently, not so in attorney disciplinary proceedings.
Today, I've got a decision from the 4th Department in my much publicized disciplinary case that was based in its entirety on sanctions from Judge Becker imposed by him on me after I sued him.
Obviously, important 1st Amendment retaliation and due process issues were involved which were not yet reviewed on the merits by any other courts because the issue was either outside of the record or barred by judicial immunity.
I have filed a cross-motion with a supporting affidavit/memorandum of law on 159 pages, and with 101 documentary exhibits.
The decision of the 4th Department that I received today recites the procedural history of the case, it recites documents upon which the decision is made, and it contains:
- 0 (zero) analysis,
- 0 (zero) reasoning, and
- 0 (zero) substantiation of the decision.
I will skip my further analysis of what is wrong with the court decision, it will be expressed in writing to the proper tribunals in the future.
I think that, since the court denied me challenges to constitutionality of attorney disciplinary system in New York that were remanded by federal court under the guise that the state court can fairly review and rule on such issues - I am owed just that, a ruling on the issues, or, in other words, an explanation why the court denied my challenges.
And, if decisions regarding other attorneys' reputation and livelihood are made this way by this court, too, this policy of providing no reasoned decisions in proceedings involving attorneys' reputations and livelihoods is a systemic violation of attorneys' due process of law in New York.