Here is the per curiam opinion regarding former LCDR Diaz’s professional licence from the Supreme Court of Kansas.
He appeared pro se.
At the hearing before this court, at which the respondent appeared, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent requested that no discipline be imposed beyond that assessed by the military courts. As referenced above, the hearing panel recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for 3 years and that the suspension be made retroactive to the date of his temporary suspension.
As discussed about United States v. Manning and Noble Prize (intended), the court observed.
We begin our analysis by recognizing that in apparent support of respondent’s position that the military courts have sufficiently disciplined him, he repeats an argument he made before those tribunals. Respondent essentially argues that while his actions were wrong his motive was virtuous. In short, he disclosed the information to protect the Guantanamo Bay detainees’ habeas corpus rights declared in the United States Supreme Court opinion of Rasul v. Bush. . . . . As noted by the hearing panel, the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding his motive argument “nonsensical and dangerous.” (citations omitted.)
However, the opinion then cites to the providence inquiry where Diaz admits to disclosure for “selfish reasons” and not seeking guidance from seniors because of career concerns.
The majority of the court found that Diaz be disbarred.