From what i understand, you get kicked out of your state bar assn. for various reasons…most of them having to do with serious ethical violations (stealing client’s funds, lying, misrepresentation, etc.). However, after a certan period, you can be re-admitted to the bar, and resume the practice of law. Now, given your past record, who in his right mind would hire you? Taken another way, who hires a n electrician who has previopusly electrocuted some customers (because he failed to properly ground a fixture). or who hires a carpenter who built a defective house?
So, what do people like Webb Hubbell (former Clinton justice dpet. lawyer) do when they are reinstated?
For me, I checkout everybody…if the local BOBO says a guy’s been disbarred, I’m not going to chance it…I just won’t hire him.
Depends. First, not every Joe Upstanding Consumer is as savvy as you at checking the records.
Second, maybe the guy was sanctioned/disbarred for some murky corporate-style misconduct that the SEC/courts, say, eventually found crossed the line. Some other aggressive company/firm might still think his aggressive style could be a plu, and give him a second chance.
Mostly, though, my impression (just from newspaper articles) is that the guys who are able to make a go of it again are doing so because their “misconduct” consisted of being “too effective” – i.e., they’re low-end plaintiffs’ tort lawyers or the like, with a retail client base, who get in trouble for manufacturing evidence, lying to opponents, manipulating the court. Now, there are some kinds of misconduct (commingling with client funds) that obviously don’t help the client, but some of the above types of, er, aggressive advocacy might look just peachy to a certain subset of clients, not least if the guy employing them has a record of delivering big paydays to his non-meritorioius clients. Think about it: the electricians or contractors you were describing got in trouble for giving their clients sub-standard work product and less than they deserved. But some lawyers get in trouble precisely for giving their client more than they deserved. If your electricians were getting de-licensed for installing devices that allowed you to steal electricity from the power company without the meter running, or descramble cable TV, I’d suspect it’d be easier to understand why they might have eager repeat customers once they got back on the job.
It really does depend on what the attorney was disbarred for. I know at least one attorney that was suspended for failure to satisfy continuing legal education credits. Another failed to pay bar dues. Yet another failed to meet deadlines in some cases (no harm to the client).
If the problems underlying the disbarrment can be managed by getting support staff to keep the attorney on time and on the ball, then why not?
Its when the attorney has been found to have stolen from the client or to have committed some other “dishonesty” type offense that things are looking bad for that guy ever being hired, as an attorney, by a reputable firm. Politically motivated disbarrments are survivable. “Dishonesty” disbarrments aren’t and probably shouldn’t be.
cj, an attorney in good standing
Whether you should hire a “rebarred” attorney will depend on the nature of your case and the nature of the original disbarrment.
If the attorney was disbarred for say ignorance, it might have been true ignorance or it might have been enlightened ignorance. As in all other enterprises, enlightened ignorance can sometimes be a very desirable asset.
Interesting concept there - can you expound on the subject of “enlightened ignorance”, please? A good example would be helpful.
Enlightened ignorance is knowing the task may be undesirable or dangerous and pretending you’re not the one for the job. If your boss tells you to clean the grease trap or your commander tells you to go out into the combat zone and fire a new weapon, you may be able to get out of it by faking ignorance. You know how to do those things but you claim you don’t.
Let’s apply this to a hypothetical case. Your client has been accused of a brutal double murder involving the client’s ex-wife and male companion. If you are truly ignorant and say “I don’t know where he was when the murders occurred”, that certainly won’t help your client.
If on the other hand, you fake ignorance, it permits you to circulate stories jurors may hear and believe, such as “he was at his Rockingham Estate at the time, chipping golf balls in the dark.”
I have three friends who have small law practices dealing primarily with medical malpractice. All three of them “pay” to get referrals. Usually they are pretty slick about it, e.g. they hire a paralegal and the salary consists of a bonus for every client they bring in. All three know they can get caught at any second but so far none of them have, and they’ve been at it for over 20 years each. All three of them have an upper middle class life style. It’s a risk they’re willing to take.
I trust all three of them as much as I trust anyone, other than myself. One of them is my son’s bb coach, and a damn good one.
Thanks, aahala.
I should have said, just lying about the skill is usually not enough. Thru your utterances or behavior, you must leave the impression you are profondly ignorant of the subject matter generally, or are so illprepared, someone else should be assigned the task.
Yeh, this is unfortunately one of dirty little unspoken things in the practice of law that go on all of the time, but doesn’t reach the light of day too much.
As other posters have pointed out, you can get disbarred for a lot of silly things. So, in your electrician example, if the electrician had lost his license for failure to pay his bills, would you still refuse to hire him? Of if you and the carpenter had agreed that he would do the job, but he went out and hired someone else, but you’re still left with a perfect house, would that prevent you from using him?
Sometimes lawyers get disbarred for really picky reasons, having nothing whatsoever to do with their skill in practising law. Commingling funds, which sounds terrible, can be as simple as writing a check off of the wrong account, and restoring it a week later, with no harm done to anyone. I’m not trying to defend lawyers disbarred for that reason, but you can see my point.
BTW, IAL in good standing also.
So, what you are saying is, you in fact support the actions of these three crooks who solicit clients illegally? You have no ethical qualms about this?
It reminds meof an old Chinese proverb:
“The chicken thief is posing as a pillar of the community…he hasn’t stolen a chicken in 3 days!”
I have a friend who was disbarred number of years ago for offences of moral turpitude (spending client funds without delivering contracted legal work, drug offences, impersonating an attorney in good standing, etc).
When she turned her life around, she started working on getting her law license back. It took 6 years of jumping through numerous hoops, but she did it and is now employed as an attorney by the same firm that gave her a chance before she got her license back. They hired her as a paralegal during the long process.
She is a good attorney who fucked up badly in the past. If you check her out on the state Bar website, it shows her in good standing but there is an indication of previous disciplinary action, and you can get the whole story if you contact the bar.
Although previous behavior is usually the best indicator of future behavior, it isn’t always.
ralph124c, you didn’t ask if we supported Mr. Hubbell’s actions, you asked why anyone in their right mind might possibly use a disbarred lawyer.
The way you respond to imaginary responses to a question you didn’t ask is truly amazing. Perhaps you should have put this thing in the Pit; Mr. Hubbell’s actions may well have been Pit-worthy. We’re telling you why people might still use them, just like you asked. Do you understand, Ralph?