Monday, October 30, 2006
By far. The West Headnote, under "KeyCite 45k - Reinstatement," reads as follows, in full:
Disbarred attorney who threatens to execute members of [Louisiana] Supreme Court and states that he has been told by two bishops that neither they nor the church would say that it would be morally wrong for him to summarily execute the Supreme Court is not entitled to reinstatement.
Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Karst, 601 So. 2d 658 (La. 1992). The opinion was authored per curiam and the seven Justicesof the Supreme Court were, as it turns out, unanimous. That is the lone headnote for a lengthy opinion (res ipsa loquitur indeed). Unlike in 1992, the state now has available the sanction of 'permanent disbarment.' OK, OK, I can see its potential application here, despite both my usual reservations...and the obvious Free Exercise Clause claim presented.
Can you top that for Ethics 101's most self-evident disciplinary decision? Add comments below if so. [Posted by Alan Childress (tip of the hat and get well soon: TEA)]