Military justice blogs are to blogs
as military music is to music.
Here is the recently issued TRO issued against the Navy in Partington v. Houck et al. More news from our senior erstwhile blogger tonight. Here is some background on the long simmering dispute between a civilian counsel suspended by the Navy JAG from practicing before Navy courts–which also resulted in a state bar suspension (see here).
The views expressed on this blog are offered in the contributors' personal capacities. They do not speak for, and their views should not be imputed to, any other organization, agency, or entity. The views expressed in this blog are those of the individual authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of any military service, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Click here for important disclaimers.
It’s about time someone challenged Navy JAG’s “Professional responsibility” process. No state in the union should consider it adequate for reciprocal jurisdiction. It’s not analagous to a state system with judicial oversight and due process….it’s more like allowing the DA’s office to disbar the public defender, and giving final vote to the Attorney General. Ridiculous.
I have represented two lawyers in this process before the military. While both would have likely been sanctioned by a state bar I was astounded at the lack of procedural due process, and the long standing effect it can have on a lawyer. Basically, you get a letter saying “tell us why we shouldn’t do this” and then they decide whether to do it.
Bill,
I can one up you…I’ve seen lawyers who would have NEVER been sanctioned by a state bar be put through the ringer, and then chastized for “violating navy regulations” by raising counter-charges and bringing up “irrelevant” due process arguments. Look to any state proceeding on reciprocal jurisdiction. The two main ways to have a ruling tossed out are demonstrating that due process was not present, or that fundamental fairness demands a different outcome. So, you do what you need to do as a LAWYER to defend your law license, and some OJAG pinhead whines that you violated some antiquated officer code of politeness. When you go after someone’s law license for pureley political motives, do you truly expect them to play nice and not raise every defense available, including arbitrary and capricious motives on the part of the accusers?
It’s particularly egregious here. Partington sent the Navy “Investigating Officer” a letter requesting to be informed as to just which Rule(s) of Professional Responsibility he allegedly was accused of violating and why. I also have represented a lawyer (defense counsel) whose basic “sin” was zealous (but ethical) representation. We had an ethics’ opinion from his State Bar saying that the conduct in question was not only ethical, but had he complied with the SJA’s “order,” that itself would have violated his duty of fidelity and client-confidences. Fortunately, the MAJCOM/JA had some common-sense and ended the matter.
I’ve also represented civilian lawyers in Bar Grievances, and so know first hand that the TJAG’s “Ethics Committees” [which have no judicial oversight as JS noted] are basically inquisitorial management tools, not gate-keepers for Professional Responsibility. Just my 2 cents.
I am gathering material for a law review article on military professional responsibility and judicial conduct cases. I will be grateful for sanitized copies of any pertinent service or court PR rulings or opinions, as well as state bar rulings affecting military or civilian practitioners in courts-martial.
Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
Gene Fidell, Eugene,fidell@yale.edu.
Gene,
no one is going to give you their own PR documents, and giving you someone else’s documents could land them in trouble with the Privacy Act. Your best bet is to submit a FOIA.