Skip to main content

View Diary: American Hate (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As some who took the IL Bar and despises Hale (none)
     STILL had a problem with this ruling by the Bar committee. I know that the admission to the bar is not a right but a privilege,  it'll come as a real shock to you all but there is a character and fitness review for lawyers before they are allowed to practice.  IL's is notoriously severe (I had friends get "counseled" about their respect for the law because they had too many speeding tickets).  
    but I thought the rationale they used to disqualify was particularly tenuous.  They claim that since he was so biased against minorities, he could not fulfill his ethical duty to  be a zealous advocate on behalf of every client he could potentially have (because there are times when your choice of client is not voluntary, and that meant he could potentially have to represent a minority some day)  In reality they were punishing him for his beliefs.  

    As revolting as I found and still do find his beliefs to be; I have a severe problem with any state agency's ability to do that.

    Now on the other hand making a death threat against a judge (which he did) is more than enough to have gotten him disbarred, so in the end it became  a moot point

    Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

    by Magorn on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 08:01:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I see what you're saying (none)
      But isn't his avowed hatred of huge groups of people and advocacy for their elimination evidence of a lack of ethics?
    •  Other issues (none)
      Here's the 7th Circuit's opinion on the Hale case:  http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=02-1716.PDF

      Hale was not rejected solely because of his "speech." He was rejected for several reasons including failure to divulge arrests and academic discipline in his bar application.  At a hearing, Hale testified that he would comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct 'while practicing law, but not while practicing his "religion"'.  Attorneys are bound by the Rules AT ALL TIMES.  Like it or not, that's just part of the gig.  Attorneys can be disbarred for drug dealing, wife beating, or drunk driving, even though these things have nothing to do with the practice of law.  So, if somebody TESTIFIES they intend to violate the Rules, how can they possibly be admitted?  The panel also determined that Hale was not being "candid and open" at the hearing. In other words, he lied.  So, an applicant lied under oath, stated he would not follow the required rules of conduct, lied on his bar application, and was denied a license.  Good call, ARDC.

      full disclosure- I am a member of the Illinois bar.

      Follow the money. It leads to the truth.

      by dhonig on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 10:42:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  SHould have read the opinion not the news (none)
        I of all people should know better.   Thanks for the link.  Reading this opinion, I'm much happier with the decision.  The Court's decision seems much more content neutral than had been reported.

        Non-disclosure of ANYTHING on a Bar app is BIG deal,  that alone would have justified their denial of admission, Or so Professor Gross hammered into our heads in legal ethics.   Add to that a declaration under oath that he would not obey the Canons of ethics, and they had not choice but to refuse to admit him.

        Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

        by Magorn on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 11:50:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site