Judge John Wilson (ret.) served as a Judge in New York City.
Are you starting to notice the pattern here? Where the New York Appellate Division has issued an interim suspension of an attorney’s law license, a recent sampling of opinions show that such a suspension was issued where the attorney had either been convicted of a “serious crime,” or had failed to cooperate with the Discipline Committee’s investigation. In the later case, you will note the court waited more than a year before issuing the interim suspension for failure to cooperate.
Neither of these factors is present in Matter of Giuliani – the former Mayor of New York has not been convicted of any “serious crime,” nor has he failed to cooperate with any investigation.
The first issue raised by Mr. Giuliani is one that would naturally occur to anyone hearing about this decision – “the…investigation into (Giuliani’s) conduct violates his First Amendment right of free speech.” But as obvious as this defense would seem, the Court makes short work of this argument. “It is long recognized that ‘speech by an attorney is subject to greater regulation than speech by others’… (w)hile there are limits on the extent to which a lawyer’s right of free speech may be circumscribed, these limits are not implicated by the circumstances of the knowing misconduct that this Court relies upon in granting interim suspension in this case.”
The Court than makes a detailed examination of the statements made by Mr. Giuliani before courts in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, as well as a series of comments made by the former Mayor in various TV and radio appearances. After this review, the Court notes that “claims of misconduct alone will not provide a basis for interim suspension, unless there is a concomitant showing of an immediate threat to the public interest.”
And here, quite frankly, is where the Appellate Division goes off the rails.
“We recognize that this case presents unique circumstances” the Court writes. “Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in and of themselves necessarily means that there is harm to the public.” Following this logic, then wouldn’t every established violation of the rules lead to an interim suspension, no matter how minor the infraction?
If you overnight generic cialis want to achieve a successful climax during penetration then you need to book an appointment in the sex clinic in Delhi, where you can Buy Online Anti Allergy Pills, Buy Anti Allergic Drugs and find a wide selection of solutions to waning or lost interest in sex is now also available to women. Benefits of Kamagra Tablets for Men’s Treatment: A first line therapy to cure ED Easily available via online drugstores Being an energetic substance of cheap levitra secretworldchronicle.com, sildenafil in kamagra tablets works speedily to reduce the effects of this medicine is about four hours one need not go anywhere looking for the medication. It is no prescription cialis no prescription usa remedy which can be taken to learn how to avoid climaxing when having sex with the partner. viagra without rx SIldenafil citrate is the key ingredient of Kamagra.“Even where there are no actual incidents of continuing misconduct, immediate harm threatening the public can be based on the risk of potential harm when considered in light of the seriousness of the underlying offense.” The Court bootstraps this weak argument with a comparison to cases involving the “mishandling of money,” something not alleged anywhere in Matter of Giuliani.
From this base of sand, the Court concludes that the “broader principle to be drawn…is that when the underlying uncontroverted evidence of professional misconduct is very serious, the continued risk of immediate harm to the public during the pendency of the underlying disciplinary proceeding is unacceptable.” Got that?
The Court then reveals its real basis for the interim suspension of former Mayor Giuliani’s law license; “The seriousness of respondent’s uncontroverted misconduct cannot be overstated. This country is being torn apart by continued attacks on the legitimacy of the 2020 election and of our current president, Joseph R. Biden. (footnote omitted) The hallmark of our democracy is predicated on free and fair elections. False statements intended to foment a loss of confidence in our elections and resulting loss of confidence in government generally damage the proper functioning of a free society.”
In essence, five New York Appellate Judges have declared it their job to protect a federal election from allegations of voter fraud and intimidation made on TV, radio and several states other than New York.
The Court also declares it to be its job to halt Mr. Giuliani from overthrowing the US government: “One only has to look at the ongoing present public discord over the 2020 election, which erupted into violence, insurrection and death on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol, to understand the extent of the damage that can be done when the public is misled by false information about the elections…respondent’s misconduct directly inflamed tensions that bubbled over into the events of January 6, 2021 in this nation’s Capitol…(t)his event only emphasizes the larger point that the broad dissemination of false statements, casting doubt on the legitimacy of thousands of validly cast votes, is corrosive to the public’s trust in our most important democratic institutions.”
If this reasoning sounds familiar, you may recall that in November of 2020, Slate published an article calling for sanctions on Donald Trump’s legal team. “As scholars who have devoted the better part of our professional lives to the study of legal ethics,” the authors intone, “we believe, based on the records publicly available to date, that the disciplinary case against certain of Trump’s lawyers is strong… Lawyers cross fundamental professional boundaries… when they file cases that make unsubstantiated allegations of election fraud and heedlessly assist their client’s calculated effort to erode trust in our democratic system… These frivolous lawsuits are expressly engineered to undermine the public’s faith in core democratic processes…Courts and state bars have power to punish and deter such misconduct.”
Looks like somebody at the Attorney Grievance Committee and the Appellate Division have been reading Slate.