… like acting all happy because the only witness in the prosecution’s case is dead, can the Judge suspend the lawyer or have him dis-barred permanently?
A lawyer can be told to sit down, which is a pretty serious sanction for someone in a profession like that. Disbarment is for more serious offences and usually done by appropriate disciplinary bodies.
Why that would be the sanction in this particular instance or they would be happy that ta witness is dead, I have no idea.
Well what if the lawyer’s client was found guilty and the lawyer pointed at the judge and the jury and the prosecution and the public gallery and shouted “HOW DARE YOU CONVICT MY CLIENT! ILL KILL ALL OF YOUR FAMILIES! ESPECIALLY YOU JUDGE, I’LL KILL YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP!”
I imagine he would be arrested immediately.
He’d make bail
The lawyer would be declared legally dead and disappeared.
- You don’t know what bail, if any has been set.
- Judges don’t disbar-state bar assoc. do.
It is up to the judge and keep in mind that judges are lawyers too! (They also would probably be acting all happy and so forth if the client’s attorney.)
Anyway, a lawyer can be held in contempt of court and sanctions issued.
Being told to sit down is a “pretty serious sanction”? I don’t understand.
The OP and follow up do not impress me as terribly lucid, but I’ll observe that some judicial officers have the authority to hold individuals in contempt, and may have a legal obligation to report unethical conduct to the state authority. Representatives can be disqualified from participating in certain categories of administrative proceedings - but IME that would take an ongoing record of pretty egregious conduct.
I suspect the real practical impact would reflect the fact that most lawyers tend to represent the same sorts of claims/parties before the same sorts of decision-makers. And decision-makers speak among themselves as do members of any other profession. While I would hope that few decision-makers would penalize claimants simply because their representative has a history of being a dick, I would imagine that a rep who acts discourteously and unprofessionally might find that overtime the court is not going out of their way to accommodate them and to resolve ambiguities in their clients’ favor.
I suspect a courtroom is meant to be a place of such rarefied politeness that any direct indication that you are being a douche is an extreme sanction. Normally the judge would use some Victorian circumlocutions to get the same point across.
Being told to sit down isn’t really considered a sanction, much less a serious one. It means that the Judge has heard enough from a particular lawyer on a particular point. Failure to follow that instruction could lead to a citation for contempt, which is a serious matter.
To directly respond to the OP–no, a judge cannot suspend or disbar a lawyer. The judge can, and in some cases, must, make a referral to the disciplinary committee of the appropriate bar association. A judge can cite a lawyer for contempt for certain actions, but the penalty for contempt is usually a fine and/or jail time…sometimes just sitting in jail until the offending attorney apologizes for the conduct.
You’re out of order! You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They’re out of order! That man, that sick, crazy, depraved man, raped and beat that woman there, and he’d like to do it again! He told me so! It’s just a show! It’s a show! It’s “Let’s Make A Deal”! “Let’s Make A Deal”! Hey Frank, you wanna “Make A Deal”? I got an insane judge who likes to beat the shit out of women! Whaddya wanna gimme Frank, 3 weeks probation?
Just to clarify: different states/jurisdictions have different rules and procedures governing lawyer discipline. Here in Kansas, e.g., the bar association has absolutely nothing to do with the process; the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator is part of the administrative apparatus of the Kansas Supreme Court, and if matters get to that stage, yes, it will be the justices of the Supreme Court who suspend or disbar. However, the court will be convened specifically to hear the disciplinary complaint; it won’t be the judge(s) who presided over the case that led to the complaint.