J.A.I.L. News
Journal
______________________________________________________
Los Angeles, California
December 29, 2022
______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People
to Alter or Reform Abusive Government
The Right Upon Which All Other
Rights Depend
The
Torchbearer for J.A.I.L. Nationally - Support
Them!
P.O. Box
412, Tea, S.D. 57064 - (605)
231-1418
Less Respect For
The Profession Than When Starting Law
School
By Stacy Ryan, Recent Law School
Graduate
The public is tired of a runaway legal
system accountable to
only themselves. Although its members have
recognized
the problem for years and announced a call
for reform,
the system does not change. As a result,
the public lost respect
for the legal profession and has
begun to demand change.
There is
corruption in every profession but lawyers and
judges
are
in the position to do the most damage not only to the
public,
but
also to our justice system. If the legal system
wants
the
respect it once deserved it will be
accountable,...
-- Stacy Ryan
Barbie & Ron,
I am
proud to say I am a recent law school graduate. I am sorry to say I
have less respect for the profession than I did when I started my law
school career. So, why did I spend 3 years and thousands of dollars to
attend law school? Because after years of messy, expensive, unethical
litigation with my ex-husband (by the way he's a judge in my city) I
was sure this was not the way the system was supposed to work. I was
sure that I could somehow expose the unethical conduct of both my ex
and his lawyers and perhaps help others before they were caught in the
"litigation vortex".
In
telling my story to legal types, most would look at me skeptically and
say nothing. I found there is a code of silence with lawyers, they will
not criticize one another, no matter how egregious their peer's conduct
might be. Before I spent
class time in my law school's legal clinic, the administration found I
was active in judicial accountability and I was cornered by two law
professors who actually demanded that I disengage myself from any
criticism of the judiciary. Two members of the bar instructed me that I
was not "allowed" to say anything bad about a judge! They
wholeheartedly agreed with me that the courthouse was a "good ol boys"
club but as a law student soon to be lawyer I could not speak my
mind. That semester they
kept me out of the courthouse because they were convinced they would
lose cases because of me.
For
my last paper, I chose to research the lawyer disciplinary process. I
would have researched the judicial disciplinary process but not much
information is available. Lawyers and only lawyers become judges so I
believe this is relevant to J.A.I.L.
J.A.I.L will find the research interesting yet nothing new.
Distrust of the legal system is also nothing new to the American Bar
Association. Despite the ABA's efforts to reform the profession, its
members are still not listening. This is interestingly but not
surprisingly illustrated by the continual criticism of the South Dakota
effort by various bar members.
Some
information from my law school paper:
In
1970, an ABA committee reviewed the nation's attorney discipline
system. The committee found a "scandalous situation" requiring
"immediate attention. Led by retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Tom Clark, the Clark committee found deliberate efforts to discourage
any public dissemination of disciplinary activities. Fueled by the
public's dissatisfaction with the bar and the courts, the Clark Report
stated, "With few exceptions, the prevailing attitude of lawyers toward
disciplinary enforcement ranges from apathy to outright hostility.
Disciplinary action is practically nonexistent in many jurisdictions;
practices and procedures are antiquated; many disciplinary agencies
have little power to take effective steps against
malefactors."
In
1992, an ABA panel led by New York University Dean Robert McKay,
reported that the public has a "growing mistrust" of the lawyer
disciplinary process. The McKay Commission concluded that the practice
of allowing bar officials to control state disciplinary systems was
perceived as a gross conflict of interest. The commission criticized
attorney discipline as "too slow, too secret, too soft and too
self-regulated."
In August 1996, the Conference of Chief Justices passed a resolution
for a National Study and Action Plan Regarding Lawyer Conduct and
Professionalism. In that resolution, it was noted that a
significant decline in professionalism existed in the bar. The public's
confidence showed a corresponding decline. From the conference
report: "There is the
perception and frequently the reality that some members of the bar do
not consistently adhere to principles of professionalism and thereby
sometimes impede the effective administration of justice." The Conference focused on an effort
to involve the state supreme courts in raising public opinion of the
profession. The court of highest jurisdiction in each state was
considered to have the ultimate responsibility for regulation of the
legal profession.
In 1999, the National Action Plan
on Lawyer Conduct and Professionalism was adopted by the
Conference of Chief Justices. The plan included recommendations on how
lawyer complaints should be handled. Some jurisdictions dismissed up to
ninety percent of all complaints because supposedly the conduct alleged
did not violate the rules of professional conduct. The commission
gathered information about the dismissed complaints and found
that many of them in fact did state legitimate
grounds. In their recommendations, the commission claimed that the
disciplinary system disregarded tens of thousands of complaints
annually.
According to the American Bar Association, in 2002, 121,000 complaints
were filed against 1.2 million lawyers. Only 3.5 percent led to formal
disciplinary action and just one percent resulted in disbarment. Of
these 121,000 complaints, 96.5 percent resulted in no discipline or
informal punishments in the form of private
sanctions.
In 2002, HALT, An
Organization of Americans for Legal Reform, produced the Lawyer
Discipline Report Card to assess whether states had taken any action to
improve their lawyer discipline system. HALT is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan public interest group dedicated to reform projects that
challenge the legal system to improve access to the courts and reduce
costs at both the state and federal levels. (see www.HALT.org)
In just one area of their
report, HALT criticized state "gag rules". Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, South Dakota and Washington
prohibited complainants from telling anyone about their lawyer
complaint before complaints become "public". (note that most lawyer complaints
never become public) The complainant who talks could be held in
contempt, fined or even imprisoned! A few of these states have struck
down their gag rules,
finding that the rule poses an unconstitutional restraint on free
speech, already noted by the Chief Justices in 1999.
Speaking from experience, I was instructed that my complaint against a
judge "remained confidential under Nebraska law". Despite my best
efforts I could not get the highest court to explain to me just what
that directive meant. I found later that my state indeed has
a "gag
rule."
The following incident was
reported in my city and illustrates just why the public has lost
confidence in the justice system.
In March 2005, an Omaha Douglas County District Judge reviewed the file
of a 26-year-old Omaha man whose third drunken-driving infraction put a
motorcyclist in critical condition. The Judge declared that probation
was not appropriate. The accused's wife began crying, the man begged
the judge not to send him to prison. The judge changed his mind.
The
accused's attorney (who by the way, was a buddy of the judge) mentioned
that the accused's dad is a lawyer. "I know his father," the
judge said. "That's another problem. By that I mean it just makes this
more difficult."
In an appeal attempt, this
judge's decision was affirmed by the higher court.
The public is tired of a
runaway legal system accountable to only themselves. Although its
members have recognized the problem for years and announced a call for
reform, the system does not change. As a result, the public lost
respect for the legal profession and has begun to demand
change.
Despite the poor press, lawyers exceed one million in the United
States. There are surely ethical lawyers in practice but they fail to
report or criticize one of their own. The result is the good suffer the
poor conduct of the bad. In my research, I also found that the public
often fails to employ a lawyer because of distrust of the
profession.
There is corruption in
every profession but lawyers and judges are in the position to do the
most damage not only to the public but also to our justice system. If the
legal system wants the respect it once deserved it will be accountable,
invite public opinion and involvement, openly emphasize and demonstrate
ethical conduct and properly punish the unethical. I would then be proud
to be a part of a profession that demonstrates integrity and respect for
our nation's legal system.
It is time bar members
start listening and follow the directives of their own
organizations.
Here's to change in 2006!
Respectfully,
Stacy
Ryan
Nebraska JAILer
Our
thanks to Stacy for this personal testimony and research on this very
important topic. She even commented "Distrust of the legal system is
also nothing new to the American Bar Association. Despite the
ABA's efforts to reform
the profession, its members are still not listening. This is
interestingly but not surprisingly illustrated by the continual
criticism of the South Dakota effort by various bar
members."
Yet, we recently had an admonition from another JAILer, an
attorney, who warned Ron that he deserves to lose this cause
because he dared to ask rhetorically of the 250 members of the South
Dakota Bar Association:
"Do
the People of South Dakota actually believe these lawyers have
decided to do this out of the kindness of their
hearts?" --referring to the free legal services SD
lawyers say they will be offering to the poor. Many of our readers
have told us of the "free legal services" they were offered, and as
the saying goes, "There is free cheese in every mouse
trap."
It
is no secret that besides the judiciary itself, the Bar Association
nationally is the natural enemy of J.A.I.L., as is its closely
associated law enforcement industry. It is the Bar Association
that hosts and trains (brainwashes) the legal fraternity
consisting of judges and lawyers. It is the Bar Association that has
made the legal system what it is today and which the People seek to
alter and reform through J.A.I.L. Ron's disdain for the legal
profession shouldn't be a surprise to anyone-- and it is the
profession to which Ron's above question is
directed. Ron has numerous attorney-friends, and so he recognizes not
all lawyers are corrupt. However, the system prevents them from
having any impact on resolving the corruption. As Stacy
reports,
"There are surely ethical lawyers in practice but they fail
to report or criticize one of their own. The result is the good
suffer the poor conduct of the bad." She says that there is a "code
of silence" with lawyers.
Ron
recognizes J.A.I.L.'s enemy when he sees it, and the South Dakota
State Bar has no effective disguise. "Prejudging" the motivations of
the members of the Bar is, in fact, not an issue. Their track
record has long been shown for many years. The evidence has
already been established and they routinely depend on their brethren,
the judges, to cover up for them (and this includes law enforcement
corruption). Ron has experienced this phenomenon himself throughout
his 18 years of legal battle. He has been fighting a closed club all
those years, and realized that law doesn't matter. Of course they're
going to criticize J.A.I.L.
-Barbie