Horace Hunter made it clear that attorneys have the right to post case synopses–even criminal ones that perhaps a defendant is not too proud of an arrest–because all cases in reality belong to the public and constitute public information.
The ARDC has taken the position that the Horace Hunter case is not binding legal precedent. It has not stated what standard it wants for attorneys to blog about cases, other than the fact the royal “it” seems to want to make that decision themselves and just let us attorneys know afterwards.
What words are prohibited by attorneys? What phrases are prohibited? From the survey results on this blog, it would seem that everyone (98%) agree that ARDC must promulgate firm and clear guidelines on what it will censor and what it thinks is okay, yet they have not done that.
They have no blog. They are not transparent, as this blog is.
While they were created in 1978 due to a public outcry regarding corruption in the Illinois Court System, one wonders if any real cure was effectuated, or if this turned into more of the same ole, same ole.
See Ken’s Motion to Renew his Motion to Dismiss his ARDC Complaint based upon the Horace Hunger case, complete with his response to the Objections that the ARDC then filed.
The ARDC claims the Horace Hunter case is not helpful or analogous, yet they cite some other disciplinary decisions which appear to be at the trial court level because they provide no citation from SCOI.
Interesting. Attorneys are not support to cite trial court decisions or tribunals as precedent. An attorney in a brief is only supposed to cite appellate or supreme court authority. Sometimes you have to, as in where there are not citable cases at higher levels because in indigency cases the litigants do not have money to appeal.
But the ARDC citing trial court precedent? Unbelievable.