Burnt Orange Report


News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas






Ad Policies



Support the TDP!



Get Firefox!


August 29, 2004

Stop it.

By Jim Dallas

TAPPED has a little ditty implying that John O'Neill should be disbarred.

There are lots of things which ought right to be done to John O'Neill (one of the Swifties), but disbarment, at least for the reasons cited in the TAPPED post, is probably not one of them. To begin with , 8.02 seems to apply strictly to judicial candidates - judges, district attorneys, and attorneys general. Why drawing the line there would make sense ought to be obvious. But if it doesn't consider the reasoning in comment 8.02.1 - "Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to
public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice." It is this duty to uphold the administration of justice that creates a special obligation for attorneys not to engage in gutter-campaigning against judges and other attorneys.

Second, 8.04 would, I believe, is extremely general, almost a sort of catchall "don't do bad stuff." And the thrust of it, as far as I can tell, is that it is aimed at stuff that lawyers do in their capacity as lawyers, or that would reflect upon their lawyering. That said, I think the Swifties stuff makes O'Neill look hackish, but that doesn't necessarily change my opinion on his other professional activities.

If you're going to start pulling rules out of thin air, oughtn't the Bar ignore you?

This is just silly. Stop the "hunting of the Bush lawyers" on flimsy grounds.

UPDATE: On the other hand, the case against Ben Ginsburg is looking pretty solid.

Rule 8.02 Judicial and Legal Officials (a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory official or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. (b) A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct. (c) A lawyer who is a candidate for an elective public office shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Texas Election Code. Comment: 1. Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to public legal offices, such as attorney general, prosecuting attorney and public defender. Expressing honest and candid opinions on such matters contributes to improving the administration of justice. Conversely, false statements by a lawyer can unfairly undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. 2. When a lawyer seeks judicial or other elective public office, the lawyer should be bound by applicable limitations on political activity. 3. To maintain the fair and independent administration of justice, lawyers are encouraged to continue traditional efforts to defend judges and courts unjustly criticized.


Rule 8.04 Misconduct
(a) A lawyer shall not:
(1) violate these rules, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the
acts of another, whether or not such violation occurred in the course of a client-lawyer
relationship;
(2) commit a serious crime or commit any other criminal act that reflects adversely on
the lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(3) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(4) engage in conduct constituting obstruction of justice;
(5) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(6) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable
rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(7) violate any disciplinary or disability order or judgment;
(8) fail to timely furnish to the Chief Disciplinary Counsels office or a district grievance
committee a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of
Disciplinary Procedure, unless he or she in good faith timely asserts a privilege or other
legal ground for failure to do so;
(9) engage in conduct that constitutes barratry as defined by the law of this state;
(10) fail to comply with section 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure
relating to notification of an attorneys cessation of practice;
(11) engage in the practice of law when the lawyer is on inactive status or when the
lawyers right to practice has been suspended or terminated, including but not limited to
situations where a lawyers right to practice has been administratively suspended for
failure to timely pay required fees or assessments or for failure to comply with Article
XII of the State Bar Rules relating to Mandatory Continuing Legal Education; or
(12) violate any other laws of this state relating to the professional conduct of lawyers
and to the practice of law.
(b) As used in subsection (a)(2) of this Rule, serious crime means barratry; any felony
involving moral turpitude; any misdemeanor involving theft, embezzlement, or fraudulent
or reckless misappropriation of money or other property; or any attempt, conspiracy,
or solicitation of another to commit any of the foregoing crimes.

Posted by Jim Dallas at August 29, 2004 04:30 PM | TrackBack

Comments

John O'Neil is beyond reproach. He is a democrat people! Read the LA Times from Saturday. He voted for Al Gore in 2000 and has called Bush "an empty suit"( I don't agree with him on that comment). He believes, as well as lots of other vets that John Kerry is not fit for commander-in-chief. He has a first amendment right to say so.

Posted by: Allan Bartlett at August 29, 2004 04:49 PM

I'm not sure anybody is beyond reproach (and, you know, the whole Nixon-O'Neill tapes certainly color my opinion, but that was 30 years ago); to the extent that O'Neill is voicing his opinion he has an absolute right to criticize Kerry for just about anything. And even if it's a really bad opinion predicated on disinformation, it's probably a bad idea to go around threatening people.

On this I think we agree.

Posted by: Jim D at August 29, 2004 04:56 PM

I love this. He practices law like John Edwards. He looks out for the little guy. He says he voted for Al Gore. He calls W an empty suit and you guys want to take him out. Take away his occupation. All for St. Kerry. You guys must have problems sleeping at night, or your soul is gone already.

The Liberal Media is beginning to leave your loser Kerry. They're not going to be W supporters, just not Kerry defenders.

Posted by: peter at August 29, 2004 05:24 PM

John O'Neill is a Republican. When confronted with federal records of his massive cash donations to GOP candidates, he just lies about it.

I will never understand why people are so desperate to hate Democratic candidates that they will latch onto obvious smears and slanders and defend them to the death.

Posted by: Matt at August 29, 2004 05:55 PM

The following language from Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 8.02: "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the *qualifications or integrity* of . . . . . . candidate for election . . . to . . . . . legal office;" would seem to apply to this situation. The issue then becomes does the State Bar want to conclude that O'Neil knew or was acting in reckless disregard as to the statements."

If anyone does file a grievance complaint about it, you can have a lawyer represent you before the committee in which case the lawyer and you can be present at the proceedings. They recently changed the grievance process so it has become a little more "fast tracked."

Posted by: WhoMe? at August 29, 2004 06:10 PM

The thing on Ben Ginsburg may be an issue on the written fees, but not on the pro bono. The rule lists an explanation of groups that can be considered pro bono in the traditional sense of the phrase, but there is genrally no prohibition against doing work for free for any client. The one possible exception may be with political groups, but that is a function of the election laws, not the ethics rules. I know that services given to certain political groups (such as candidates and office holders) is considered an "in kind" contribution, and so one is subject to doination caps (which is why Clinton had to incur debt to and pay his whitewater attorneys). With the (not so) Swifties, I think you can give unlimited amounts. Someone ought to look into that and if he cannot, then file an FEC complaint that Ben Ginsburg made an illegal donation to the group.

Posted by: WhoMe? at August 29, 2004 06:17 PM

I've since posted an update to my Ginsberg piece that extends my previous remarks--as WhoMe? notes, you can do work from free for a client, but doing so opens you up to some thorny questions of independence. But the term "pro bono" doesn't just mean "free." I was astonished that a smart fellow would bandy that term around.

Posted by: Tim Francis-Wright at August 30, 2004 09:11 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






BOA.JPG


December 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31


About Us
About BOR
Advertising Policies

Karl-Thomas M. - Owner
Byron L. - Founder
Alex H. - Contact
Andrea M. - Contact
Andrew D. - Contact
Damon M. - Contact
Drew C. - Contact
Jim D. - Contact
John P. - Contact
Katie N. - Contact
Kirk M. - Contact
Matt H. - Contact
Phillip M. - Contact
Vince L. - Contact
Zach N. - Conact

Donate

Tip Jar!



Archives
Recent Entries
Categories
BOR Edu.
BOR News
BOR Politics
Traffic Ratings
Polling
Texas Stuff
A Little Pollyana
Austin Bloggers
D Magazine
DFW Bogs
DMN Blog
In the Pink Texas
Inside the Texas Capitol
The Lasso
Pol State TX Archives
Quorum Report Daily Buzz
George Strong Political Analysis
Texas Law Blog
Texas Monthly
Texas Observer
TX Dem Blogs
TX GOP Blogs
Daily Reads
College Blogs
GLBT Blogs
More Reads
BOR Webrings
Election Returns
Texas Media
World News



Powered by
Movable Type 3.2b1