The case of Partington continues
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Partington. Hawaii suspends Mr. Partington for 30 days, in a 3-2 decision.
Here is a link to the dissenting opinion by Judge Nakayama, in which the dissenters recommend a one year suspension.
Previous posts and comments: here.
I hope I am not the only lawyer who is very uncomfortable with the Judge Advocate General’s decision in Partington’s case and the jacked-up process that led to it. Partington was not the only lawyer who signed the appellate brief, yet he was the only lawyer disciplined by JAG. Whatever happened to measuring the performance of the defense team — the military appellate counsel whose name is on the brief is more than a cypher — he or she has the same ethical duty. And reading the facts, I don’t believe that the brief was materially misleading. To the contrary, I believe that the disciplinary process was started because Partington made the prosecutors and MJ look like they didn’t know what they were doing, which may be entirely true. The Navy lawyer disciplinary process is completely arbitrary and capricious as his case demonstrates.
I don’t claim to remember all the facts of this case, but I am with Charlie. I find it troubling that only Mr. Partington is taking the hit on this. It is almost as if NMCCA is saying “we know our lawyers don’t really do anything when a civilian is on the case” which has never been my experience working with the fine folks at Code 45.
I agree with my colleagues – this is not the judiciary’s “finest hour.” First of all, there’s no mention of CAAF’s 1 year suspension: 69 MJ 408 (CAAF 2010)[Daily Journal]; which was (although strangely not publically available), subsequently reduced.
Second, I thought that there was litigation in the federal court in DC over whether or not a TJAG had the authority to discipline any attorney, much less a civilian, non-government employee attorney, other than to decertify them as a JAG. If that’s been resolved and anyone has a link or citation, I’d greatly appreciate it. If that’s still pending, what happens if the federal court ultimately holds that TJAG’s “suspension” was ultra vires? A “whoops” and “we’re sorry?”
I didn’t read all of the briefs, but do we know that none of the military counsel were disciplined?
Concur with those above.
The JAG Professional responsibility process is a DoD IG investigation waiting to happen. It’s rife with abuses of position, retaliatory motives, and unchecked maliciousness. I have seen formal complaints brought by sitting jurists for some pretty absurd alleged misconduct. Ultimately in that case, the allegations were dismissed, but not after dragging the target attorney through the mud for over a year and costing them thousands in legal fees.
Just saying is right, firrst stop pretending it is non adversaerial it is down rigjht inqisitorial with no rights in ther respondent, no counsel, no discovery, no compulsion of witnnesses or production of documents. Most importantly no jujdicial oversight or review, no record of cases to provide istorical precedent which is important in ethics espcially becise ir provides a framework withinn which to conseider the actions complained of and also educate the attorneys as to what is or is not allowed. Let the JAGS ppresent the attorneys as candidates for admisssion to CAAF upon completion of J school and then let a grivance committee undeer their auspices handle grievances and puiblish decisions and establish access tio trhe court or an assigned judge to be available to hear motions and ultimately decise apporopriate punishments , there would nbe uniformirt among the services as all attorney would be of this same bar and a chance to leave an historical trail for edujcating the bar. In fact a host of due process protections would also follow. Should less be done when a peersons integrity and ability to earna income is on the line? Lets make it a real bar under a real court.