University governance as a new topic of public discussion.
An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)
Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)
USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter. (LAC)
Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)
TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)
Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett. Manual of Ideas (LAC).
Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)
Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.
Jack Coffee on Bad Plaintiffs' Counsel in M&A Deals and What Must Be Done to Break Them
Subscribe to Law Talk
Concurring Opinions is a
multiple authored, general
interest legal blog.
It’s like watching a slow-motion car wreck.
August 30, 2006 at 9:11 am
Posted in: Law Practice
Print This Post
Michael Lee - August 30, 2006 at 10:16 am
Another example of a judge bending over backwards to protect a fellow member of the legal community. It doesn’t matter how unpardonable your behavior…if you are part of the club…you walk.
If that idiot had not been a lawyer, the judge would have crushed him.
Christine Hurt - August 30, 2006 at 10:39 am
I don’t think the judge knew exactly what to do. The blood alcohol limit is probably .08, and he blew a .075. So, she can’t arrest him for public intoxication. However, she knows that he’s been in her court for almost 2 1/2 hours, so he was almost certainly intoxicated when he drove to court and when he entered her court. But she’s not sure what she can do about that, which is why she looked to the prosecutor to help her out. She’s not the police; her concern is whether he can represent his client, and she does not think he can. So now she has to decide how to bar him from the courtroom under bar rules and not public intoxication rules. He has obviously lied to her, but he was not under oath and she can’t prove that he lied without external evidence. She’s in a very tough situation. In hindsight (from my experience watching Law & Order) I would have held him in contempt. Either way, through the Bar or through a malpractice action or just through the market, I think he will be punished.
Roger - August 30, 2006 at 10:43 am
So do we know what happened? It cut off for me with the judge not knowing what to do.
Contempt sounds right to me.
Dave Hoffman - August 30, 2006 at 10:46 am
Here’s part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV2qtvbIPFE
There may be a part 3, but it isn’t up on YouTube yet.
I otherwise agree with Christine’s spot-on comment.
Calvin Massey - August 30, 2006 at 11:31 am
It’s sad all the way around. Too many lawyers have substance abuse problems; too many lawyers have a problem acknowledging responsibility for their own misbehavior. That said, I would drop the contempt hammer on this fellow, mostly for his lies to the court, but also for his irresponsible behavior to his client. Maybe we should ask our students to watch this video as a reminder of how not to behave.
Roger - August 30, 2006 at 11:44 am
Ah, no, but the description for part 2 says “part 3 coming soon!”
Nate Oman - August 30, 2006 at 1:32 pm
I agree with Christine here. The judge can’t prosecute this guy for a crime. I do think that contempt would be appropriate and not simply for lying to the court. Appearing before a judge drunk certain shows disrespect for the tribunal and undermines its proceedings.
S.cotus - August 30, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I don’t think the judge could have known for sure. The videotape doesn’t show anything that would constitute probable cause.
She could probably not hold in him contempt since she keeps referring to things outside the courtroom. On top of that, the actual reading it .075, anyway.
Also, she can’t charge people with a crime. That was silly. Indeed, in looking at it, I think that her constant statements that she “cares” and “doesn’t want to hurt him” are a little disingenuous. She has already done enough to his reputation.
Bruce Boyden - August 30, 2006 at 3:07 pm
There was a link to the local news coverage of this incident on How Appealing or somewhere a couple of weeks ago. Here’s the AP report. (Result: Mistrial declared.) I recall reading somewhere else that Caramagno is a well known defense attorney in Las Vegas.
ohwilleke - September 1, 2006 at 3:08 pm
S.O.P., at the very least, would be for someone to report this to the bar disciplinary authorities. Under oath or not, is a clear and blatant violation of professional ethics to lie to a judge in court. Simply showing up to court 90 minutes late is bad. Being under the influence in court when handling a very serious case is a serious problem.
Does he get disbarred? Maybe, maybe not. But, this would clearly justify a suspension from practice, because the risk of harm to the client is so great and the disrepresect for the court so blatant, and there was enough happening in court (like misidentifying the “girlfriend”) that contempt of court (possibly in a later hearing rather than on the spot) is clearly justified.
Ross - September 4, 2006 at 2:42 am
What do you think would happen to a physician found to be intoxicated while preparing to operate on a patient?
S.cotus - September 7, 2006 at 8:09 am
Ross, Drunk doctors that operate on patients might be suspended from practice. If they are sued for malpractice, they blame the lawyers and frivolous lawsuits. Since they rarely operate drunk on people that matter it isn’t much of a problem. A better question would be: what if a doctor operated on a doctor or lawyer drunk.
Ohwilleke: As a rule of thumb, when my opponent says something is clear: I win. Whether he was “under the influence” is a bit of a gray area, since his blood alcohol content wasn’t that high. Contempt generally refers to actions taken deliberately. If, for example, he had some alcohol in his blood, but not enough to be too drunk to legally drive, and got into a car accident, resulting in disorientation, he wouldn’t be in contempt.
Finally, merely being drunk in court might not even be contempt. Heck, in some courts, ½ the people in court have some booze in their system. (Prosecutors, too.) Instead, the question is whether he actually violated an order, or somehow did something to disrupt the trial.
Strangely, courts are not that concerned with allegations of drunk lawyers made post-trial by defendants who were found guilty. I guess their liberty interests are attenuated, because, after all, they are the kind of person who got a drunk lawyer.
Fred H - February 23, 2008 at 12:03 am
The guy can be removed from the case by the Judge as impaired. He will be sanctioned and sent to a program and will be suspended for a period of time,if not , disbarred.
Email (will not be published), required
Website (if present)
Above the Law
Access to Justice
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Crime & Federalism
Dorf on Law
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
Freedom to Tinker
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Point of Law
Privacy and Security Training
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
Sentencing Law and Policy
Talking Points Memo
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
The Yin Blog
© Concurring Opinions
Powered by WordPress