Given that his lawyer is in jail, the client can easily get another lawyer and a continuance. No huhu.
Continuance, yeah. That oughta be easy. The other lawyer, not so much. That other lawyer also has to make a living, which means he’s gonna want to be paid. And he’s going to have to spend a good deal of time going over the files, re-interviewing witnesses, possibly getting transcripts of earlier hearings, maybe doing some research, etc. The jailed lawyer is going to keep his fee for services rendered up to the point he’s fired–so the client gets to pay for a lot of duplicated effort. Because he chose a lawyer that decided to take a stand on an issue that didn’t matter to the client in the first place. I’m sure that client will be tickled pink to have made such a contribution to Justice. Especially if he had to borrow money to pay the first lawyer.
But these “symbolic” issues that “don’t matter” to clients can be manifestations of prejudices, unworthy of a judge, that do matter to flesh-and-blood clients. Atheists and other people outside the Protestant Christian mainstream are just a little more common than unicorns, even in the rural South. (I’m a lifelong atheist, and I live in Atlanta–not the rural South, natch, but not that far away from it via Interstate highway. I know a fair number of atheists, incuding atheists from the rural South.) If no one ever challenges the judges on their open bullshit–the prayer sessions or the mandatory Pledge of Allegiance recitations–then they just sit there, year after year, on the bench, wearing the robes and wielding the gavels, and maybe getting away with God knows what sorts of subtle or not-so subtle biases against the village agnostics, the lesbian single mothers, the immigrant motel owners with funny names who practice weird un-American religions and who somehow-the-hell wound up in some small town in the rural South. Sure, if the judge acts improperly, you can always file an appeal–if the client can afford to do that.
Maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on the lawyers who just go along to get along, and try to make money to pay the rent and put food on the table while also doing some justice on the way. But I damned well don’t think we should bash the occasional lawyer who DOES stand up to the bullying petty tyrant of a judge and say “Enough is enough–that’s wrong, now cut it the hell out, or get out!”
Well said, MEBuckner, well said.
Yes, hear, hear.
Yes, well said. Except that I suspect Oakminster was reacting to he following things that ARE “being hard” on that lawyer:
Death? No.
Lifetime of poverty? Given the cite earlier in the thread indicating that this incident is simply the latest example of a pattern of contempt for the law and Constitution, he’s been getting paid for a job he hasn’t been doing, and in fact has been actively undermining. Kicking him off that gravy train seems fair enough to me.
His tongue would burn with fire before he got halfway through the Preamble.
xxxxxxxx - time out lag garbage happened.
So how do you get rid of the guy??? We see a lot of reasons and excuses to not do anything. So how about ways to do something? The judge needs to go. HOW?
Can’t really be done, unless the Judicial Performance people recommend he be removed and the Supreme Court agrees. It is too late for anybody to qualify to run for the next election, and he is unopposed. It will be another 4 years before another candidate could attempt to take the seat. Considering his age, his next term will probably be his last.
I hear what you’re saying, but from my point of view, any judge who acted this way (not just the Pledge, but jailing someone for refusing to play along) is almost certainly a terrible terrible judge to be in front of for anything. So, in your hypothetical, I don’t think you could count of “probation” even if you play his stupid reindeer games. This guy is a serious loose cannon. I general, I agree, you put up with a lot out of respect for the court and in recognition of the power the judge has over you and–especially–your client. But I think my “salute of Hitler’s photo” analogy is a good one. Some things you just don’t agree to, regardless of the consequences.
Not necessarily. Lawyers want a judge to be consistent and predictable. If I know what the judge is likely to do, I can advise my client accordingly. A guy that loves him some Pledge can still be an excellent judge to hear a domestic violence case, or a child support contempt, etc…
Agreed.
So the “final answer” is to let the judge do whatever he wants, enforce whatever personal “thing” he wants, and lock up anyone he wants.
I have “a problem” with that answer. Everyone should be accountable to someone or something. Everyone, even a judge.
I’m not sure that’s the consensus. I’m hearing some say that it’s more complicated than simply making a principled stand, as you have your client’s interests to consider. Regardless, I’m on the side of the lawyer in this one, and would have refused to say the pledge. Probably wouldn’t make a big deal out of it (unless I’m thrown in jail). Once my case was over and I didn’t have to worry about my client’s interests, I would write the judge a respectful letter suggesting that leading the courtroom in the Pledge might not be a good idea, and suggesting we have lunch sometime to discuss. If he continued doing it, I’d file a complaint with the Judicial Conduct Commission.
For you lawyers: is there a anonymous complaint system for this sort of thing to the Judicial Conduct Commission? Or something like “lawyers working for the Bar association who don’t try cases ordinarily and so can afford to deliberately go into courtrooms and piss off judges by not saying the pledge”?
Also: I imagine this sort of thing sets up one hell of an ethical conflict for you guys (do what’s best for the client and shit all over the Constitution, or uphold own rights and potentially hamstring your clients by pissing off the judge) and I don’t envy anyone who has to make such a decision.
He is accountable to the Judicial Conduct people, and ultimately to the State Supreme Court. I don’t think he’s going to get away with this without some sort of sanction. My understanding is that there has been at least one, and possibly several, complaints filed with the Judicial folks.
Dunno about whether a complaint can be made anonymously. My guess would be no, considering the Judge had a sixth amendment right to confront his accuser.
Absolutely.
People lose their jobs every single day in America for far less serious offenses than corrupting public office, betraying the public trust, and violating someone’s constitutional rights. I guess the idea of “personal responsibility” is another one of those “universal” standards that actually gets applied fairly selectively.
Given that we are always told how the right-wing crazies are balanced by the left wing crazies, can we now see all the left wing commentators who are discussing a Second Amendment solution to Judge Littlejohn, and the left win preachers who are calling for prayers that Judge Littlejohn dies so he can be replaced?