Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> Appellate Law and Practice

Appellate Law

: Appellate Law and Practice

Which rules of professional conduct are violated the most?

By S. COTUS

Sure, some judges are biased, and only pretend to give the appearance of being unbiased.  Other judges come right out and say that they are biased in favor of the government. 

Some judges are boozehounds or just plain nutty.

Sure, some lawyers do not represent their clients with competence.  Remember if you don't read all Supreme Court cases, all cases from Circuit Courts of Appeal and all cases from your state, you are behaving unethically and need to self-report yourself to the bar.  Failing to self-report makes you even more unethical.  Obviously you must read unpublished decisions, too.  While 95% of all lawyers comply with this basic requirement, the 5% that don't are a black mark on our profession and hate the USA. We all look bad knowing that there are lawyers that go home at night without having read today's cases. 

There are also lawyers that work for temp agencies.  While I don't know if they are violating any rules of professional conduct, they might as well be since everyone hates their guts.  In the words of one member of the Federalist Society, "Contract Attorneys are Stupid."

But, here is my nomination for the most ignored rule of professional conduct.  Actually, it turns out most states don't have it.  But a few do.  MD. R. Prof. C. 8.4(e) reads:

It is Professional Misconduct for a lawyer to:

(e) knowingly manifest by words or conduct when acting in a professional capacity bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status when such action is prejudicial to the administration of justice, provided, however, that legitimate advocacy is not a violation of this paragraph.

Wait a minute!  Maryland lawyers can't say they hate the poor? They can't say that the poor are lazy?  Oh, but it is perfectly okay for Maryland prosecutors to prosecute the poor for acting like poor people?  Isn't that a little prejudicial to the administration of justice.  Or does prosecuting poverty get a free pass because it is "legitimate advocacy"?

Does this mean that making the argument that a Terry stop was justified because it was in a "high crime neighborhood" is unethical?  I sure hope so.  But then again, the closest I get to Maryland is New Jersey when I can't navigate my yacht correctly and I have to have to Coast Guard rescue me from a certain case of poor-people cooties.

   But does this mean it is a violation of the rules of professional conduct to refuse to hire lawyers that went to law schools that cater to the poor, or law students that act like they never went to a restaurant better than Outback Steak House.  Now, surely the practice of trying to ascertain whether a law student has "poor people social skills" or "rich people social skills" is prejudicial to the interests of justice.

PS: To all you Furries and Overlawyered readers there that keep writing me notes, I don't have time to respond to all of them.  Nevertheless I look forward to reading about your views about this blog.  Unfortunately, I don't have time to answer all of your comments, but I hope to post some of them to this blog soon.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on July 26, 2008 (boomark / email).