Sunday, November 11, 2012

Multiple Choice

The web page of the Idaho State Bar has summaries of recent disciplinary actions.

One of the described matters involves a public censure of an attorney for criticism of a judicial officer.

In a motion to withdraw in a criminal matter, the attorney described the magistrate judge's formulation of a legal test as "stunningly nonsensical" and stated:

The Court’s errors in this case were so inexplicable and so great in number that Counsel has formed the belief that this Court is:

            (a)        lazy;
            (b)        incompetent;
            (c)        biased;
            (d)       prejudiced; or
            [(e)]     all or some of the above.

With all due respect, Counsel simply cannot escape this belief.  There is no explanation for this Court’s ‘finding’ of a ‘fact’ that did not exist.  It would be understandable if this Court overlooked a fact, but this Court made up a fact.  It just so happens that this Court made up facts to the advantage of his former employer, the Boise City Prosecutor’s Office.  Therefore, this Court is either biased toward them, prejudiced against Counsel, too lazy to actually listen to the recording of the relevant interview, or too incompetent to reach the correct conclusion from the facts.  Therefore, Counsel lacks faith in this Court’s ability to objectively and competently serve as a fact-finder in this case...

The contempt citation is on appeal. (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Multiple Choice :


Post a comment