Sunday, October 01, 2006
Order of the knee pads update: Nebraska Supreme Court disbars attorney for committing lese majeste of the Court the Bar and especially the counsel for disciplineState ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Beach, S-04-1399, S-05-1116, 272 Neb. 337 Attorney faced disciplinary charges for suggesting that her ex husband kill himself, for disclosing confidential information about her and drinking with her while the client was on probation. The referee recommended a six month suspension. Then the attorney mistakenly sought to editorialize his feelings about the court and the counsel for discipline as follows: About the former clients new attorney: "The practice was more enjoyable before feminazi bitches like you came on the scene." The attorneys offensive comments about the attorney disciplinary process which seems to have benefited some attrorneys who have stroked the system to avoid more serious sanctions: "Your rules suck in situations like this. I didn't try to screw her or steal her money. The letter I wrote to her disgusting husband had to be written and [J.N.] needed a couple of [sic] beers on occasion to balance her wacky head." On July 14, relator notified respondent that it had filed a grievance against him regarding his conduct in sending the aforementioned letters. In grand language with magnificent circular reasoning the supreme court states it will uphold a bar of strokers who dare not challenge their cabal: "Hostile, threatening, and disruptive conduct reflects on an attorney's honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, and reliability and adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Janousek, 267 Neb. 328, 674 N.W.2d 464 (2004); State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Lopez Wilson, 262 Neb. 653, 634 N.W.2d 467 (2001). An attorney's conduct which includes progressively abusive language, demeanor, and threats violates disciplinary rules that prohibit engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on one's fitness to practice law. State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Lopez Wilson, supra." Ie, behavior we dont like adversely reflects on an attorneys fitness to practice law. Dear Supreme Justices: "hostile threatening etc reflects on honesty trustworthiness diligence and reliability." Is this a rule of law or a conclusion you drew as amateur psychologists, ala Brown v board of education?