"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“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).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“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.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

What is a suspendable offence in Missouri is business as usual in New York

According to news reports, a Missouri attorney was suspended from the practice of law when he used confidential information that his client in a divorce case, illegally obtained by breaching into his wife's e-mail account after guessing his wife's password.

The EXACT same thing happened when my former recent client in a divorce action suffered a breach of his e-mail account by the opposing spouse.

I complained about it to the judge.

The judge chose his hatred against me over propriety, and DID NOT sanction the attorney or the e-mail breaching client.

I cannot divulge the name of the former client or any other information other than that the exact same breach of e-mail happened, since documents divorce proceedings in New York are sealed and that the attorney remained un-sanctioned, un-disciplined and still practicing law, and I cannot unseal them.

Yet, information that an attorney used in court proceedings what is a suspendable offense in another state, and a result of a federal crime (Internet hacking), is a matter of public concern.

I do not know whether the breach occurred at the direct order of that attorney or not, yet the attorney did know that the information the attorney was using was from the e-mail account from the opponent of the attorney's client in an extremely bitter divorce litigation - so the information could not possibly be obtained through consent of the e-mail account's owner.

There is no point for me complaining about that attorney, since the professional conduct committee has a tendency to go against me on such complaints, and not against the attorney I am complaining about, even with documentary evidence supporting my complaint (there was such incident in the past).

I just wanted to make the public know that, as I said in the heading, what is a suspendable offense in Missouri, is business as usual in New York, for some lawyers.

No comments:

Post a Comment