From the attorney blogs:
Lawyers are beginning to report on their blogs that ABA Model Rule 8.2 saying a lawyer cannot:
Rule 8.2: Judicial & Legal Officials
Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession
Rule 8.2 Judicial And Legal Officials
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.
Is now only being used to silence lawyers that are reporting on corruption in the court system, and in particular, probate.
From the blogs, it is widely reported that the rule was simply “thought up” by the ABA, it has never been passed by any state legislature, federal legislature, and there were no public discussions, legislative history or studies of any kind–and especially those that would look at the chilled speech it created, or what effect it might have at all on the First Amendment.
In other words, it was promulgated in a vacuum, has never been properly studied, and it certainly does not comply with the precepts enumerated in Alvarez, Citizens United and any of the very far reaching recent First Amendment cases that SCOTUS has now mandated as law of the land.
Lawyers are starting to widely and publicly complain all the rule is being used by is miscreants for their own personal felonious nests and featherbedding–something the rule was never intended to do.
The ABA took down about 1/3 of the blog it ran on my 3 year suspension, and has not responded to my direct communication to them, even tho it sent me an auto responder it would.
I also don’t see the comments back up.
What sort of an organization is the ABA and just whom is it protecting from what?
ABA model rule 8.2 needs to be put out with the trash in light of Alvarez, Citizens United, Snyder, and others that take a very broad view that the public can say just about anything, and even lie, and it’s a constitutional right. Everything written today is so easily verifiable and researchable on the internet, what possible benefit can there be for limiting free speech?
What protections do lawyers and judges need anyway? Is it even possible to malign the reputation of an Illinois politician, esp. when so many are in the clink at the present time?
It is even possible to insult a judge or lawyer, other than in their own egotistical minds?
This blog told the story that the Emperor had no clothes and continues to have no clothes.
The ARDC then clings to the optical illusion of clothes in a desperate attempt to justify that fact that there exist dozens of valid consumer complaints of a very serious variety against certain favored attorneys on the 18th floor (Sykes, Cooper, Wyman, Bedin, etc.) that it flatly refuses to investigate, and even worse, they send out nonsensical letters of response worthy of the literary skills of those addle minded by some serious mind altering substances.
Rule 8.2 is then used as a sword to chill free speech–a rule the people never passed, the state legislature never passed, and a rule which most of the Illinois public would claim unfairly protects Illinois judges and lawyers–a group that for certain needs no special protections.
Lawyers have constitutional rights and we don’t leave them at the door. Honest lawyers don’t want or need a code of silence to protect miscreants. Honest lawyers don’t go after other honest lawyers.
Mr. Steven Splitt has now been replaced as litigation counsel on my 3 year suspension as opposing counsel for the Review Board.
My message to him today is loud and clear: you are violating my constitutional rights with a “rule” that was never studied, never passed by any legislator, and was implemented without public discussion. It is now only being used as an excuse by the ARDC to cover up serious issues that it refused to investigate on behalf of the public, leaving dozens of lawyer victims in its wake.
This needs to stop.
Mr. Splitt, you now need to figure out your own karma, your own ethics and morals.
If I were you, I would just quit rather than prosecute an honest attorney. You can come work with and for me. There may not be much money, but you can start to heal the karmic damage done the ARDC to the likes of Sykes, Bedin, Gore, Tyler, Drabik/Richards and others who have suffered years of horrors on the 18th floor and in other Illinois court rooms.
Or not. Your karma is only your business, but those experienced in karma, will tell you that the longer to wait to fix your karma, the more of a b**** she will be when you get there. And there is absolutely no avoiding Ms. Karma–she will hunt you and track you down to the ends of the earth and back again. There is no where to hide from her.
Please join with me in demanding that the ARDC rescind Rule 8.2 so it can start doing it’s job of actually reading the blogs, hauling in miscreant attorneys and disciplining them–the job which was its original mission.
I am doing the work for free now. I serve probate victims for free or low cost. Mr. Splitt, now you can do the same.
I promise to make room for you.
Sharon Opryszek has turned me down, Leah Black has turned me down, Melissa Smart has turned me down, but you have a new opportunity to walk with the angels and do a whole lot of good in Illinois, publicly one of the top most corrupt states in the US>
PS–and today I was supposed to give “a statement” to Ms. Opryszek at 1 pm about another case where the lawyer was acting like a total miscreant and ruined the life of my client for months. I discussed his bar complaint which he so richly deserves and next thing you know, SO is saying I can’t say that. I withdrew the email and apologized, but now Ms. Opryszek is demanding documents that don’t exist and that I don’t have and insisting that they must be there. Turns out she has no idea what the definition of “clipboard is”. she probably thinks it’s an ISIS torture device. But what was she doing at 1 pm when she was supposed to be doing my statement? Eating birthday cake. That’s right. And the ARDC operators were on the phones telling everyone about how Mr so and so was in a meeting. Not. They were all eating birthday cake from 1 to 1:30. Then Ms. SO rounds the corner, chewing me out for documents I don’t have and I told her so and then she leaves. Whew. The song “Happy” was playing when I got into the car so I knew there are no coincidences. What obnoxious, rude, insulting behavior. Her attitude clearly was bordering on “if you don’t have it, you better make it up–or else because you’re on my ‘go after’ list.” She can stuff her ‘go after’ list. I’m not interested.
Here’s my response to Ms. SO. No. I won’t make up your crappy evidence you want, no matter how much you insult and berate me. I am an attorney and you can’t insult, berate, extort or coerce a good attorney into lying for you. Not you or good Lord Larkin himself will get me to lie to make your jobs easier, so just lay off. You might have gotten away with that with poor Ms. Justine McGinty, but I am not a 19 year fresh out of the country girl. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
And that other attorney deserves a big hefty bar complaint against him and I’m saying it again. the judge wouldn’t sanction him, so I have no idea why you are all getting involved. You want to hide behind rule 8.2 so I can’t talk honestly to this other attorney, so be it, but I see no reason to give credence to a rule that was made up without any studies, information or evidence it does any good other than to harass honest attorneys.