I have nothing but respect for the judges. Nothing. That’s the problem.

MAL CAMINO MAL DESTINO

No longer permitted to practice law, I wait to one side.

My crimes:

• demands to a miscreant judge to step aside;
• confidential complaints to supervising judges;
• an aborted inquiry into the miscreant’s ties to lawyers with court business - blocked by the miscreant - who bankrupted my solo practice with $15,000 in fines, for complaining about him, confidentially, to the Fifth Federal Court Judicial Council.

My many convictions:

• interference with the administration of “justice” by the miscreant;
• burdening lawyer-witnesses, whom guardians of judicial privilege themselves to decline to examine.

Questions which stop the ears of the guardians of both legal and judicial ethics:

1. How many judges receive money gifts from parties with court business?
2. How many do favors in return?
3. How many such judges are too many? One hundred? Ten? One?

An information asymmetry:

• the robed miscreant accepts the gift(s) and does the judicial favor(s).
• the imprudent, but honest court officer denounces the miscreant.
• One is distinguished; one is tossed aside.

When the conduct of a robed miscreant is placed in issue, plenary investigative tools (under the control of STATE judges) become as flaccid and useless as a third nipple.

You states, LOUISIANA, HAWAII, MARYLAND:

• your judges punish lawyers for not gifting them:
• your Counsels of Discipline blend the power of lions with the prestige of dung beetles.

What are YOU STATES  afraid of? Judicial spite? What do they know that we cannot know? That gifts and favors to/from a robed miscreant are routine?

No Gifts Accepted - All Gifts Returned. 

This was the Cardozo Rule.

The road from Benjamin Cardozo to this moment has been a long, downward strut and shuffle.

I have nothing but respect for the judges. Nothing. That’s the problem.

FROM: RBC, That’s What I’m Talking About, page 51 (Amazon, elsewhere)

Law Students: Spot Judicial Misconduct? Keep That to Yourself

In the first federal lawsuit I ever filed, I discovered documentary evidence that a federal judge was a landlord to his former law firm while simultaneously hearing cases brought before him by his former law partners. This meant the judge had a financial interest in the outcome of these cases, since he was collecting rent from counsel in his courtroom.

I reported this to the judge in question by way of a recusal motion.

Upshot: 

1. The Fifth Circuit supervising judges did nothing to address the factual basis of my complaint. Did they look at law firm financial records, or the judge's financial records? Of course. 

Not.

2. The judge in question failed to recuse himself from a matter focused on his financial interest (as required by the judicial conduct rules). 

Instead of following the judicial complaint rules - or being made to follow these rules by supervising judges - the judge who was the target of my complaint, bankrupted my solo practice, with $15,000 in fines, and then ordered me off the case - leaving my clients without counsel. 

3. Vindictive, indifferent state court judges in three jurisdictions (Louisiana, Hawaii, Maryland) placed me in a disciplinary procedural vortex which, by rule, cannot look into judicial misconduct - and then threw me out of the legal profession for making "allegations" which they themselves never addressed, and declined to forward to a US attorney.  

The Fifth Circuit Judicial Council remained silently on the sidelines while I was prosecuted for a matter in which they had declined to conduct even the most superficial inquiry.

Was my judge a landlord of lawyers with business in his court? I say, yes according to documentary evidence filed in the office of the Louisiana Secretary of State. The rest of the judges say, we don't care and are not going to look into that but we will surely punish you for making that "allegation." You are just too stupidly honest to be a lawyer.

In practice, the prettily-written judicial complaint rules belie the fact that these rules offer zero protection for a whistle-blowing attorney. 

In retrospect, I could have and should have done what 500,000 other lawyers do - kept quiet about the private financial arrangements federal judges have with attorneys and attorney associations. These lawyers and their associations have found ways to put money into the pockets of the judges in whose courts these lawyers appear.

In my experience, attorney disciplinary procedures are a pantomime of a fair, transparent and honest proceeding. 

My request to Disciplinary Council that my complaints about the judge be investigated before I lost my law license were simply ignored. (If you do not cooperate with the august Disciplinary Council, you can face a separate charge of 'non-cooperation' but the DC is not required to cooperate with you.)

Controlled by judges, attorney disciplinary procedures are used (three times, against me) to punish a lawyer who foolishly expects supervising judges to shine a light on an "allegation" of serious complaint  of financial misconduct by a brother judge.

In the USA, its OK (mandatory?) to slip something of value to "his'onor"

The New York Times reported today (July 19 2013) on the transparently corrupt conviction of a blogger, who has been a relentless Putin critic.

According to the Times, the chief prosecution witness 

"gave contradictory evidence, and defense lawyers were not allowed to cross-examine him. In addition, Judge Blinov barred the defense from calling 13 witnesses."

The cynical exile from civil society of a critic, effected by criminal conviction engineered by judges is not restricted to Russia. This is what happened to me.

I complained about the documented, ethical misconduct of a federal judge, but the supervising judges on the federal 5th circuit, simply circled their little wagon, not bothering to investigate the judge. 

This opened the door for state court judges, lemmings each and all, to drum me out of the legal profession by "suspending" my law license. 

None of my three licenses will be restored until (under the Louisiana disciplinary rules) I "apologize" - for telling the truth about a be-robed miscreant who probably should never have made it to the federal bench but who, once there, enjoyed a complete lack of supervision of the ethical performance of his duties.

There was never even the pretense of an investigation of my formal complaints by the Fifth Circuit Judges. 

Without investigating on their own, the top judges in the three states where I held a law license were free to characterize my documented complaints as mere "allegations" and lift my law license for coming forward to complain. 

So much for the integrity of the judges on the 

5th federal circuit 

and the state high court judges in 

Louisiana

Hawaii 

Maryland 

These judges merely pretend to high ethical standards. They are as concerned about the ethical behavior of a judicial colleague as a moo cow is in the outcome of the Kentucky Derby. 

If you want to win in federal court, slip something of value to "his'onor" since a travel gift or some other perk to the judge is the only (un)ethical rule that counts. 

When I objected to all this - travel gifts, doing business with lawyers, ignoring the judicial complaint rules, failing to transfer to another judge a motion into his financial ties to lawyers appearing before him -  all this raised no alarms in the chambers of other judges. 

Instead, each and all of my "allegations" merely provided grounds for state court judges to become the executioners of my reputation.

SOURCE: NY Times, July 19 2013: Putin Critic Gets 5-Year Jail Term, Setting Off Protests

ONE OF THE WORST EXPERIENCES YOU CAN HAVE

One of the worst experiences you can have is to be reminded unexpectedly of a personal tragedy. This just happened to me.

I opened a file draw and inadvertently pulled out a “Congratulations” letter from the clerk of a Federal District Court in Louisiana, welcoming me, as a new officer of the court. 


I remember the sense of elation and anticipation I felt when I first received this item, years ago.

That was before I discovered that the Canons of Judicial Ethics mean nothing, and the Judicial Complaint Rules mean less than nothing.

I no longer have a law license. 

My three licenses were suspended after I filed a confidential complaint of misconduct against a federal district judge, who publicized my name as the lawyer, who had filed a confidential complaint of misconduct against him. 

This maneuver by the judge of course destroyed my effectiveness in either litigating or settling the matter at hand.

More than two years later, I was prosecuted by the Louisiana Disciplinary Counsel for having brought the confidential complaint against the federal judge. 

I was prosecuted successfully, of course; both of the lawyers on the three-person committee who adjudicated the complaint against me, were members of the lawyer organization who had gifted the judge. (This was one of several of my complaints about this judge – that he took gifts and did favors for his lawyer pals.)

The lawyers who found me guilty of misconduct of course knew what I should have known:

If you expect a judicial complaint to be taken seriously, you live in a world of illusion and delusion.

The attorneys who found me to be unethical for complaining about an unethical judge, practice before the very judge about whom I had complained. They knew there was no actual issue to be decided when it came to either punishing an officer of the federal courts for fling a truthful complaint about a judge versus stating, candidly and honestly, that the judge had done what I said he had done. 

I discovered, at the cost of my law licenses, in three states (Louisiana, Hawaii, Maryland), that no one associated with the legal system is going to criticize a federal district judge for flouting the judicial complaint rules. Why not? Those rules are not enforced by the Circuit Judges who are theoretically supposed to supervise the conduct of the judges below. The Circuit Judges set the tone and it is a very low tone. Inaudible. 

I was reminded of all this when I opened that file and found my “congratulations” letter together with my certificate of admission. I won’t be needing these items any more and don’t need to be surprised by them again. I put them in another file – a round one.           

   

WHAT THE MARYLAND ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION HAS TO SAY - ABOUT ME

BALTIMORE COUNTY

"COOK, Richard Baldwin - Suspended for eighteen months by Consent for filing two motions to recuse the judge in a federal lawsuit for alleged misconduct which had no connection with his client’s case and for filing discovery requests in pursuit of this motion against individuals who were not parties to the lawsuit and who did not possess discoverable information. Respondent violated Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct 3.1 (meritorious claims and contentions), 4.4 (respect for rights of third persons), 8.4(a) (violation of Rules of Professional Conduct) and 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). There was no allegation or finding in the disciplinary proceeding before the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana that Respondent made any false statements about the federal judge in his motions to recuse or at any other time." http://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/sanctions08.html

Couple questions:

1. Why ought it be  improper to complain about a corrupt judge? Why must an attorney demonstrate "a connection" between a dishonest judge's conduct and a client's case?

Even the required-connection principle ignores the fact that this judge presided in a matter effecting some 100 of my clients.

Why ought my clients or any other litigants be made to come before a court with a track record of departing from the FRCP to do favors for his pals and former law partners?

The finding that a lawyer can only come forward with a judicial ethics complaint when the questioned conduct involves that lawyer's case is a novel doctrine that has no precedence or, really, any point, except to penalize a lawyer for reporting judicial bad behavior.

2. It is common for attorney's to file discovery requests against individuals who are "not parties."

To have found these potential witnesses had no "discoverable information" is an assumption made without reference to the actual facts - the miscreant on the bench ordered that no information from them could be obtained.

To find this discovery attempt to be unethical belies the fact that I had been ordered to show cause why I should not be sanctioned by the miscreant judge.

It was both proper and essential that I discover information from the former managing partner of his old law firm, especially after the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council signaled it would do nothing to protect me from this judge, after he announced he was going to punish me for filing a (so-called) confidential judicial complaint.

At no time was my conduct improper.

What was improper - and ignored by the state judges in Louisiana, Hawaii and Maryland who have destroyed my legal career - was that a judge is not supposed to rule on discovery which is directed at his own finances and his own financial misconduct. Each and all of these judges simply ignore this stricture - which is binding upon their own conduct, and is probably the reason why they do not want to go anywhere close to the practice of gift-giving to judges by litigators who appear before them.

3. To rule that I violated various ethical strictures - while steadfastly refusing to do anything at all about my truthful complaints about the judge - belies a degree of cynicism, which ought to make the Louisiana, Hawaii and Maryland Judges embarrassed and ashamed of themselves.

Of course, there is no chance of that. But questions remain:

Why do state court judges subject a lawyer to discipline for complaining about judicial misconduct - in a disciplinary proceeding which, by rule, cannot examine the conduct of a judge?

Why are state judges set on protecting a federal district judge from the consequences of his misbehavior?

Why do state judges shield well-connected lawyers, whose documented behavior demonstrates they gifted a federal judge? Is it because state court judges also benefit from lawyer-largesse?

Why do state judges refuse to forward "allegations" of judicial misconduct to a competent prosecutor before throwing a demonstrably honest attorney under the judicial bus?

4. It is worth repeating the final statement of the Maryland summary - out of the mouths of the Maryland judges' chosen guardians of legal ethics:

"There was no allegation or finding in the disciplinary proceeding before the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana that Respondent made any false statements about the federal judge in his motions to recuse or at any other time."

Only judges who are indifferent to the truth and hyper-protective of a miscreant on the bench, would make this statement - while banishing an attorney from the legal profession. Did I say "profession" ? I meant to say "club."