Disbarment of 10 lawyers associated with Westboro Baptist Church sought

[Matariki]

petition here: http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43822.html

article:

http://cjonline.com/news/2011-02-28/generals-complaint-targets-phelps-lawyers

Nine retired U.S. Air Force generals have filed a complaint with state regulators to seek disbarment of 10 lawyers who are members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka.

The military group, led by Maj. Gen. Larry Twitchell, of Ann Arbor, Mich., submitted a massive file to the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys in an attempt to prove four broad violations by lawyers in the congregation that attracted attention by picketing funerals of soldiers and celebrities.

The objective of the complaint is to compel an inquiry into allegations lawyers tied to the church failed to maintain standards of professional conduct required to hold a law license in Kansas. The preferred outcome is disbarment of each individual, they said.

Action is necessary, the group said in a statement, given the lawyers’ “decades-long pattern of uncivil and unprofessional conduct.”

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Horse with no Name]

3. K&R

The sole reason of their being attorneys is to stave off their own legal fees so that they can incite others so that they can sue them.
IMHO, that is a breach of public trust and unethical conduct.

I hope this is successful.

[TygrBright]

4. Guess the Dominionist element in the USAF doesn't want the Phelpses blowing the cover...

...off the creepy association between hyper-religiosity and wackjobbery.

Day late, dollar short from that perspective, but I hope they manage to yank these prevertebrate slime out of circulation anyway.

interestedly,
Bright

[aquart]

6. Wow. A total smear on the character of the complainants.

And I'm willing to bet you don't know a damn thing about them.

[uppityperson]

5. k&r for call them on unprofessional conduct

[get the red out]

7. Excellent

Their whole purpose is to incite people to react in a way that they can sue for, it is a scam and needs to be stopped.

[speltwon]

8. I would like to hear the specific allegations. As loathsome as the ideas of WBC are

advocating what they advocate is called free speech, and should not be referred to as "uncivil and unprofessional conduct". Lawyers have a long history for example of civil protests, conscientious objection, and defending some of the most loathsome people on earth. As they should. The WBC is loathsome, but advocating a loathsome position is entirely 1st amendment protected and in no way the sort of stuff that should cause a risk of disbarment. Iow, ideas can't be assessed on a content based analysis in this respect.

[Poll_Blind]

10. +1 Thank you.

PB

[speltwon]

11. Thank you. It saddens me how many people here only respect the 1st amendment when it comes to those

they agree with ideologically. I'll side with Voltaire and the ACLU.

[hifiguy]

14. Ginning up litigation is VERY much frowned upon

by most bar associations and ethics committees. The Phelps clan apparently seems to be expert at it. And fitness to practice law is not subject to First Amendment concerns. No lawyer will ever be disciplined for expressing a personal opinion on a subject of public interest. This is an issue of legal ethics and those are two separate things. There is no constitutional right to be able to get a law license, which was made clear to me in my legal ethics class in law school.

[speltwon]

15. I never said there was

What I am saying is the push against the phelps clan is because they promote and publically proclaim odious beliefs. That's what it comes down to. It's the functional equivalent of going after a lawyer because you don't like their publically expressed views. Again, show me specific allegations about what the Phelps clan has does to risk disbarment. I see what they do as no different than a lawyer (like Kunstler) who often marched with, and even engaged in civil disobedience with, people he agreed with ideologically. Kunstler's ideas were noble, and the Phelps' are evil, but the conduct itself is no different

[hifiguy]

21. All I am trying to say is that the Rules of Professional Responsibility

which govern attorneys in their professional capacities, are a different thing from the First Amendment. If the Phelpses are being investigated for repeatedly bringing frivolous litigation, using the legal process to harass others (both of which I suspect the Phelpses are up to their ears in), or committing some other breach of those Rules, that is the proper role of bar authorities and disciplinary committees. Violate those rules and you can lose your law license. Period.

It would be nearly impossible for any disciplinary group to have found against civil rights lawyers back in the day even if such charges were brought. The rules have little to say about unpopular clients, but only on how an attorney conducts him/herself while acting as an attorney. In fact, most Rules of Professional Responsibility I am familiar with indicate that a lawyer may have at least a moral DUTY to represent such clients. And in any case, those attorneys were arguing on a good faith basis for a modification of existing law, which is one of the the major factors in determining whether litigation is frivolous or non-frivolous. They were basing their arguments on sound constitutional principles.

One can be an @$$hole to whatever degree one pleases in sounding off about the issues of the day. A different set of rules applies when an attorney is acting AS an attorney and not as a loudmouthed private citizen, however @$$holish.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. So tell me. Who do the Phelps lawyers march with?

You paint a picture of them joining a movement of like minds. Are there other groups involved? You compared them to those who march along with those they agree with. So who agrees with Phelps, which marches do they join that are not of their own making?
Also, can you show me any activities other than public accusations about specific people and groups that they engage in to 'promote' their alleged beliefs? Do they promote in any form that does not provoke other people in public? Do others, not associated with the church or law firms, join in their demonstrations?
And I'd say that complaining about a party being 'gone after' for their views is fairly ironic in defense of people who go after others for they do not like their views. I suggest that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It would be interesting to hear anyone make a case for the 'promotional' elements of what they do, that is, what specific parts of going to a strangers funeral with signs announcing God hates someone serve to communicate their belief system or promote it to others. If I was told they were 'promoting a belief' I'd ask to see proof of that assumption, as I'd contend they were trying to start a fight. The intent is not to promote, but to provoke.
And it is not their views, but actual actions that are being considered here. Big difference. So not their views, their actions. And that is what court is for.

[WatsonT]

17. Agreed

I hate them as much as anyone but we shouldn't bend the rules just to get back at them.

[Bake]

18. You're exactly right.

What if there had been similar demands to disbar civil rights lawyers in the 60s?

I'd like to see the specific allegations. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess there's not much in the way of disbar-able conduct. Slimy, yes; unethical by lawyers' standards, not so much.

Bake

[Angry Dragon]

9. Kick

[Taverner]

12. AWESOME!!!! Those who live by the law shall DIE BY IT!!

[hifiguy]

13. Following disbarment

I should think that a trip to the stocks for 24 hours would be just ducky. The crowd will have to bring their own rotten vegetables and bags of dog leavings for pelting purposes during that time, however.

[joeybee12]

16. I like this strategy...knr

[3lyford]

19. Seems like a slippery slope

Dangerous encroachment, instead of saying lets shut up people we disagree with. Try this perspective for a second. The military is taking legal actions against people who protest the military.

As for their "ideas" if I can be so generous. Their so offensive and stupid, probably some of the best PR that gay rights ever got. In fact I challenge you to think of a way to make people more angry with homophobes.

[Modern_Matthew]

20. +1 Even the most vile of speech deserves the same amount of defense as populist diarrhea. nt

[Kurovski]

23. If they can be disbarred, they can be disbarred.

Period.

Even presidents can have their licenses suspended, and they never seem to shut the fuck up, now do they?

[3lyford]

24. It could intimidate people into silence

Wasn't Clinton disbarred? Of course he gets money from other sources. So that was mainly a symbolic thing. At least it seemed to make the Republicans happy. However the threat to basically ban someone from working in their field is pretty serious. It could intimidate people into silence. Did they do something illegal or just represent/espouse really stupid offensive things?

[defendandprotect]

26. Agree -- could be a blowback ... but was this just from military funerals?

Iow, is the military somehow taking this personally?

I do prefer to see people coming out to offset these disgusting people --

Think perhaps just a statement -- without the threat -- might have been enough?

[Occulus]

29. The WBC will still be free to protest

They will simply no longer have licenses to practice law.

This is the same sort of rule I work under at the USPS. I am free to say anything negative I like about postal managers, and I can criticize postal policy until the cows come home, but I am not allowed to say bad things about the USPS itself. That isn't a restriction on my speech per se, but rather a rule of professional conduct.

[3lyford]

34. not being able to criticize your employer publicly

isn't the same thing.

Again though, this group is the best thing that ever happened for gay rights. I know they don't realize it but they make everyone, and I mean everyone sympathize with gays. No need to explain why its wrong to hate gays now, just point to these morons.

[Occulus]

28. "Try this perspective for a second"

Wrong perspective.

For your analogy to work, you would have to say "the military is taking legal actions against members of the armed forces who protest the military while in uniform." And yes, the military would be completely within its rights to do just that, and no, that would not be a violation of the First.

This is about professional conduct, not speech. There's a difference, and as you can see upthread, actual lawyers know the difference.

[3lyford]

33. actually the military is literally

taking action against people who protest them. The Air Force is attempting to delicense (I made up a word) people who protest against service peoples funerals. That is basically a protest against the military. In fact saying people in the military should die because the US is wrong is about as anti-military as you can get.

[Canuckistanian]

25. That's a new tack

Good luck to them. I think the Westboro clan are hitting the law books on this as we speak.

[ehrnst]

27. "Church" my ass. A bunch of mental defectives who figured out a way to avoid paying taxes.

That's where they should be hit.

[Kurovski]

36. The family is swaddled in the violent, hateful abuse Papa nutjob doled out

to his wife and children.

The family found a way to stay together and vent the hate beat into them on the rest of the world. It's a genius bit of deeply dysfunctional survival.

I think it's a microcosm of how extreme right-wingers function as parents. the children irrationally act out upon the world at large, or easy targets, rather than deal with the rigid abuse suffered with the parent themselves.

[Puregonzo1188]

30. Why because they won their Supreme Court case?

Sorry, this isn't going to fly. While I really dislike the WBC (though I may be starting to dislike people who play into their actions and give them all this attention) the Supreme Court has ruled their protests are Constitutionally protected free speech.

They' can't be disbarred for their involvement.

Unless there's something more to the case--I know Fred Phelps was disbarred.

[LeftinOH]

31. Fred himself was disbarred long ago; he made sure his kids would carry on

the 'traditon' -hence, most of them are lawyers.

[tavalon]

32. appropriate

[David__77]

35. On the surface, it sounds like it's without merit.

I hate the group, but it sounds like this is reaching. If nothing else, in its affairs with external parties, the WBC group has been very careful to adhere to the letter of the law.