American lawyers lack protection that European lawyers have for statements on behalf of their clients

I have written in this blog that I have a disciplinary proceeding pending against me for sanctions imposed upon me by a judge who I sued before he started to impose the sanctions.


All sanctions were imposed for my statements on behalf of clients.


Today I've read the "Summary of International Standards Concerning Attorney Disbarment" by the American Bar Association which cites to the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and to cases of the European Court of Human Rights.


In particular, what caught my attention is footnote 5 on page 2 of the "Summary" where the ABA cites to a case Steur v. Netherlands, where an attorney was disciplined for questioning good faith of an investigative officer where the attorney's client was charged with social security fraud.


The attorney was disciplined for "impugning the character" of the officer, and his appeal was dismissed.


The European Court of Human Rights held that punishing the attorney for statements on behalf of his client was a clear violation of attorney's right to freedom of expression, and was wrong because it could have chilled expression during advocacy, inflict harm on the legal profession and can lead to denial of a fair trial to the clients.


In this country, attorneys do not even have a right to be heard on any level higher than (in New York) the level of the appellate court.  Attorneys in the U.S. are not given the right to appeal any further, are not given the right to remove their case in federal court, unless they can claim RACIAL discrimination (as my case showed).


In Netherlands, the attorney was provided two more layers of review AS OF RIGHT - right to an appeal, and right to contest the finding of discipline in the European Court of human rights.


In this country which attempts to proclaim itself as "the leader of the free world", elementary rights afforded to attorneys in Europe, are not given to American lawyers targeted for their advocacy for their clients.


When attorneys are punished, whether through sanctions, arbitrarily imposed fees for "frivolous conduct" or attorney discipline, for advocacy for clients (and especially where criticism of the judiciary is part of such advocacy), the public which is already grossly underrepresented in court (less than 20% of litigants can afford legal representation in the U.S.) loses honest advocates who are courageous enough to step on toes of public officials who violate clients' civil rights.




The American Bar Association referenced in the "Summary" I mentioned above the opinion of the United Nations Organization that "if attorneys are unable to vigorously defend their clients for fear of disbarment, they will be unable to provide the legal services required to ensure meaningful access to counsel".


In view of what has happened and is continuing to happen to me based exclusively on the contents of my advocacy on behalf of my clients, and in view of the fact that multiple attorneys have been suspended or disbarred in the U.S. and are continued to be disciplined in a variety of ways, including suspension or disbarment, there is no way to obtain independent legal counsel in the U.S., as any and all American lawyers would be afraid of a disciplinary action based on the essence of their advocacy and will not raise sensitive issues on behalf of clients for fear of attorney discipline or financial sanctions.

Such punishment is clearly against the public's best interest, and until the public starts paying attention to punishment imposed on attorneys for the contents of their statements in court on behalf of their clients, access to justice in the U.S. will remain as abysmal or non-existing as it is now.