Professions

Now THIS Is An Unethical Judge!

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross of the Northern District of Georgia had a habit of having noisy sex with a police commander in her chambers during office hours. This resulted in a “chambers workplace that was extremely uncomfortable and troubling for clerks,” a judicial panel concluded.

Gee, ya think?

Ross was nominated to the bench in the Northern District of Georgia in 2014 by President Obama. Of course she was. She’s a Democrat, she’s black, she’s arrogant, and she’s unqualified to be a judge. A special committee released damning findings of misconduct in a report two weeks ago. Ross was found to have lied about having sexual intercourse in her chambers—judges aren’t supposed to lie either—but inexplicably, the Eleventh Circuit and Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability decided sufficient punishment was to bar Ross from serving as a chief judge and require her to write apology letters to her clerks. Other than that, she only received a private reprimand. The disciplinary report signaled a whitewash by stating, “Although the special committee is deeply troubled by the conduct in which the judge engaged, the subject judge has demonstrated a strong propensity for rehabilitation and continued diligent service to the judiciary.” She lied to investigators! She was screwing around during work hours. That’s “diligent service to the judiciary”?

The lack of serious sanctions is indefensible. Ross shattered the following Canons in the Federal Judicial Code of Ethics:

Pages: 1 2

The ABA Issues An Ethics Opinion To Help Lawyers, Not Clients

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

 The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has issued ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 523 titled “Engagement Agreements Allowing a Lawyer to Withdraw When the Client Fails Substantially to Fulfill an Obligation Regarding the Lawyer’s Services.” 

The opinion’s summary:

“Rule 1.16(b)(5) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct permits a lawyer to withdraw from a representation, or to seek the tribunal’s permission to do so, when “the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer’s services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled.” This provision is ordinarily invoked when a client fails to fulfill an obligation regarding payment of legal fees and expenses. The engagement agreement may memorialize additional obligations of the client, both obligations that are otherwise implicit such as the client’s truthful cooperation with the representation, and further obligations insofar as they are not forbidden by the Rules, other law (including court rules), or public policy. A client’s persistent failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services, including obligations unrelated to payment of fees and expenses, may constitute a basis for withdrawal if the procedural requirements of Rule 1.16(b)(5) are met. Further, the lawyer’s engagement agreement may put the client on notice of permissible grounds for withdrawal under Rule 1.16(a) and (b), including the client’s failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services. However, the engagement agreement may not expand on the grounds for withdrawal set forth in Rule 1.16 or purport to alter or amend the grounds for withdrawal or the process for withdrawal required by the Rule.”

The ABA is being coy. Traditionally, because, you know, we lawyers are professionals and are not in it for the money but rather for the good of society, lawyers aren’t automatically allowed to drop deadbeat clients because they have stopped paying. It is not unusual for a judge to refuse to allow an attorney to withdraw for that reason, and there is another Catch 22: the confidentiality rules in most states forbid a lawyer from telling a judge that a client isn’t paying his or her legal bills, or can’t.

One coded message that some jurisdictions wink at is “Your honor, I request to withdraw because Mr. Green is unavailable at this time.” Of course, coded violations of confidentiality are still violations. Now the American Bar Association is saying that “the client’s failure to fulfill obligations regarding the lawyer’s services” makes dropping that client reasonable and ethical. This is supposed to be a profession. But for most lawyers out there, it’s all about the money.

The ABA’s pronouncements aren’t binding on anyone, remember.

The full opinion here. 

Comment of the Day: “What Exactly Are California’s ‘Values’? Can Anybody Explain?

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Sarah B, not to be confused with the other eminent commenter here with a similar handle, put together a two-part comment that provides an overview of the growing problem of sexual predator teachers. Ethics Alarms has done a lot on this topic, but not lately, perhaps because there are so many other things wrong with our education system. This may have been the most recent; I should have had a tag for “predator teachers.”

I should shut up now: it’s a long piece, and worth reading, Here is Sarah B’s Comment of the Day on the post, “What Exactly Are California’s “Values”? Can Anybody Explain?”

***

As much as I hate to defend California, this is hardly unique.  Wyoming has similar policies and we are about as red as they come.  A previous principal in my town harassed/seduced teachers and students who reached the age of 18.  Because all of his predations were of adults (even if only technically), he remained at his job for nearly a dozen years before enough complaints and the loss of too many teachers forced the school board to finally let him go.  Just this last couple of years, a special education teacher was arrested after sexually abusing lots of kids just a few towns over from us.  He had been skirting the edges of the law for years, but finally crossed enough lines that he could be arrested and fired, after abusing at least a handful of kids.

The other stories I know of are teachers who abuse students in other ways, not sexually, but I personally do not see much of a difference between a teacher who sexually harasses students and a teacher who beats students up, since children should be safe and unharmed in the school system if it were any good.  Therefore, I’m picking on a favorite story of mine involving my cousin, since I know many of the particulars that I might otherwise not know in detail.  He worked in one town and was fired for wrestling his students and put a few too many in headlocks.  After being fired for this, he was transferred to another town, where he rug-burnt a few handfuls of his students.  He got fired again, and was hired as the youth pastor at the local Baptist church.  He wrestled a few more kids harshly and is currently not allowed to be the only adult present when the youth group meets. 

Frankly, if one looks at the data, 38% of all students in 7th-12th grade receive sexual harassment/abuse in the public school system from adults, according to some studies in 2017.  I caution that these studies have broad definitions of sexual abuse/harassment, including things ranging from rape to cat-calling to inappropriate jokes and sexual comments.  Of course, the more minor offenses of inappropriate comments and commentary are far more common than the more serious ones.  Grooming behavior is reported separately, but is very common.  The adults also range from teachers to coaches, bus drivers to lunch ladies to janitors, and everything in between.  However, 63% of the behavior nationwide comes from teachers.

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Dunce: D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

As I often say (or think) in such situations, “Yikes!”

I’m going to send you to a thorough exposé over at Signal, a conservative website, which means its thorough coverage of this example of irresponsible conduct in a position of trust as well as a stunning “bias makes you stupid” display will be brushed off by some as just a partisan attack. I’m certain some ideological hostility helped prompt the piece, but it is accurate, which means that Signal has flagged a genuine ethics problem. Good for Signal.

D.C. Bar Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler has posted dozens of inflammatory, openly partisan, politically-motivated comments on social media for years,. He has mocked, insulted and attacked conservative Supreme Court Justices (but never the liberal minority). He has reposted with favor attacks on Donald Trump and Elon Musk (for his conservative views.) It appears someone finally told him, “Hey, moron, what are you doing?” and he’s taken down the worst of the tweets. The internet is forever, though. And Metzler has moved to BlueSky, the Twitter/”X” alternative for progressives who can’t tolerate people and opinions that don’t toe the woke line. I regard that as signature significance for Trump Derangement and partisan indoctrination.

Pages: 1 2

As Predicted, Virginia Democrats’ Dishonest and Unfair Gerrymandering Referendum Was Just Struck Down As Unconstitutional

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

Good.

It was a disgraceful power-grab, made worse by deceitful wording that called “fair” a device that was intentionally unfair. I declared the referendum illegal on the basis of its deceptive wording, but that turned out to be a moot point, since the process by which the monstrosity made it to a special election was tainted as well.

The Virginia Supreme Court’s majority opinion is almost contemptuous of what Democrats tried here, and contempt is justified. Fake moderate Democratic Governor Spanberger decided to support an effort to make a 50-50 Democrat-Republican state all Democrat in Congress, and had the gall to allow a referendum on the redistricting call that “restoring fairness.” I’d like that referendum language to be used by Republican as exemplifying this sick party’s anti-democratic delusion: anything that doesn’t advance Leftist agenda items is by definition “unfair”—as well as racist, sexist, cruel and fascist, depending on the issue.

I am also wrestling my typing finger to the floor to avoid posting on Facebook,

“I would expect my various lawyer friends who supported this indefensible measure despite its obvious legal and ethical flaws to admit their betrayal of fellow Virginia citizens, including their friends like me, and apologize or at least wear paper bags over their heads in shame. But I know they won’t, because they made it quite clear that they felt distorting Virginia’s election results and disenfranchising Republicans and conservatives is justified because they hate the elected President of the United States. That attitude was and is disgusting, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.What happened to you?”

Meanwhile, The Left Is Still Concocting Reasons To Discredit The Non-Incompetent SCOTUS Justices…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Stipulated: Clarence Thomas’s extensive conflicts involving his right-wing billionaire pals mandate his resignation or removal. The fact that his wife is a conservative activist does not. No, the flags that Samuel Alito’s wife likes flying over the couple’s domiciles are not a reason for him to recuse himself from anything. Somewhere between these two extremes, but closer to the flags than Thomas’ goody bag, is the new assault on Justice Roberts.

Christopher Armitage, a far Left scholar whose anti-GOP, anti-Trump positions are cloaked in respectability, came up with this one. He describes himself as “independent.” Strangely, his work “has been cited by the Brookings Institution and covered by NPR, PBS, Mother Jones, and The Nation.” Those are all infamous Leftist propaganda organs, with Mother Jones and The Nation on the extreme end of the spectrum.

Now he is getting cheered by those sources for a Medium post that asserts,

Pages: 1 2

Justice Alito Explains That Justice Jackson Is An Idiot. Good.

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

In one SCOTUS case after another, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a demented President’s irresponsible DEI selection for our highest court, has demonstrated an absence of judicial integrity, or, in the alternative, intellectual ability. Her questions in oral argument have been incoherent, and her legal reasoning is regularly polluted by obvious partisan bias. She is, in short, an embarrassment to the Court, the nation, the judiciary, the law, her race, her gender, and her party. Finally, following an extreme example of Jackson’s incompetence, Justice Samuel Alito came as close to calling her an idiot as a Supreme Court Justice can within the limits of professional civility.

It’s about time.

The Supreme Court last night granted a request to lock in its opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, discussed on EA here and here, where the Court struck down a congressional gerrymander as racially discriminatory in breach of federal law. The decision allows Louisiana to draw a new map in time for the 2026 mid-term elections. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter in the 8-1 decision to eschew the delay. Jackson’s fatuously argued that the Court’s ruling “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”

Yes, chaos is often the result when a state is trying to do something unconstitutional and is blocked.

Pages: 1 2

I Hope Rudy Giuliani Recovers Sufficiently To Read This: A Legal Ethicist Neatly Explains What’s Wrong With Bars Punishing Trump’s “Stop the Steal” Attorneys

/ Jack Marshall / Leave a comment

Rudy Giuliani is in critical condition in a hospital today, and it reminded me to finish this post.

Giuliani is one of the lawyers hit with bar association discipline for representing Donald Trump in the wake of the highly suspicious 2020 Presidential election, or perhaps I should say the way they represented Trump and his contention that the election was “stolen” or “rigged.” I have written two posts about the D.C. Bar and New York Sate Bar’s proceedings against Rudy here and especially here. My conclusion in then latter piece, in part. :

“This case has been the subject of much debate by my legal ethicist colleagues of late, with a depressing near-consensus that Rudy is getting what he deserves. This is because, I detect, the vast majority of lawyers cannot see through their political biases and Trump hate. At the most simple level,… contrary to the Court’s certitude, all of the evidence is not in, though the claim that there was widespread election fraud and that the election was “stolen” has for many months been pronounced “a lie” by Democrats and the mainstream media with suspicious vigor. While the opinion makes a convincing case that many of Giuliani’s statements, including some made to courts and government bodies, were careless, sloppy, badly sourced, unprofessional and wrong, it cannot know at this point that his (or Trump’s) general claim is false. If it is not false, then raising doubts among the public cannot be called dangerous to the public. It is more dangerous to keep opinions, arguments and ideas from the public’s awareness “for their own good.”…Giuliani, like so many other victims of the 2016 Post Election Ethics Train Wreck, is being punished by a double standard predicated on the hatred of Donald Trump. That’s unethical.”

Esteemed law professor Brad Wendel, who belongs to the same, almost totally anti-Trump legal ethics specialist association that I do, has published a contrarian analysis following California’s disbarment of John Eastman (above), who was one of the principal architects, along with Kenneth Chesebro (who was disbarred in New York after pleading guilty in Georgia to charges of election interference), of President Trump’s legal assault on the 2020 election. There are plenty of tells in Prof. Wendel’s essay that he is far from a Trump admirer (for example, he refers to the “scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election.”) However, he writes,

Pages: 1 2

More Evidence of “Why We Can’t Have Nice Things”: The Wise Latina’s Fake Apology

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I wrote about Justice Sotomayor’s unprofessional (but what should one expect?) slap at fellow Supreme Court Justice Bret Kanavaugh here. Not only was “The Wise Latina’s” attack based on an ad hominem attack rather than the, you know, law (but what should one expect?), it was a betrayal of her colleagues on the Court and one more appeal to divisiveness based on emotions.

Now the Justice has “apologized,” with this bare bones statement:

“At a recent appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law, I referred to a disagreement with one of my colleagues in a prior case, but I made remarks that were inappropriate. I regret my hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague.”

It’s a crummy apology at best. She does not explain why her personal attack, using the cheap “privilege” tactic (as in “People like you just never understand..”) was “inappropriate,” or expressing clear contrition, like saying, oh, for example, “I was wrong.”

On the Ethics Alarms Apology Scale, I rate this pro forma dodge as at best a #6 (1 is perfect, 11 is worst): “A forced or compelled [apology] when the individual…apologizing knows that an apology is appropriate but would have avoided making one if he or she could have gotten away with it.”

In other words, it’s the bare minimum apology that isn’t completely insincere. You know what happened; everyone does. Chief justice Roberts told her that her conduct was unacceptable and ordered her to apologize to Kavanaugh and possible the entire court.

Pages: 1 2

Now THAT’S An Unethical Surgeon…

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

“He eventually removed Mr. Bryan’s liver, thinking it was his spleen. The Health Department noted in its report that, in addition to being on different sides of the abdomen, “spleens and livers are anatomically distinct, have different consistencies, and are different colors.”

This might ssem funny, except that the patient, 70-year-old William Bryan, died. You can’t live without a liver.

The surgeon, Dr. Thomas Shaknovsky, 44, has been indicted for second-degree murder. Good! This medical version of a scene in a Marx Brothers movie took place at Ascension Sacred Heart of the Emerald Coast Hospital in Miramar Beach, Florida in August 2024. I must say, I don’t understand the story at all.

Poor Mr. Bryan underwent diagnostic imaging at the hospital on August 18, 2024 that indicated his spleen might be enlarged. There was blood in the membrane lining Mr. Bryan’s abdomen, but no signs of hemorrhaging. Dr. Shaknovsky told the patient that he needed to have his spleen removed, a minimally invasive procedure with a recovery time of up to six weeks. The doctor neglected to tell his patient that he couldn’t tell a spleen from a liver.

Pages: 1 2