Edwin Franklin Bush III of Des Plaines, Illinois, is facing an ethics complaint from the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission for, inter alia, calling opposing counsel a “bottom feeder” and the judge a “clown.” The comments were allegedly made during a divorce and custody case where he was representing himself. As one might imagine, emotions ran high in the case and Bush says that his wife was lying in the proceedings, that his children missed him, and he complained the judge was moving too slowly.
All of which Bush says provides justification — or at least context — for his comments. And, as reported by ABA Journal, Bush’s comments to opposing counsel were quite the doozies:
• “I strenuously object to you being a lowlife bottom-feeder, who suborns perjury, breaks the IRPC and extorts your own client.”
Heading To Legalweek? Come Join Above The Law!
Meet the team in NYC at our Monday night happy hour — 3/9 at 7pm. RSVP required.
• “If it means your fat ass and your suborning perjury piece of s- -t daughter [who is one of the lawyers] have to get an order of protection against me, we will be in court … one way or the other. You are all child abusing filth, all of you. Bring it. When the justice system fails, I will have my recourse.”
And it’s not like he spared the judge his ire. Comments to the judge allegedly include such gems as:
• “That’s why this is the clown car. You are a clown.”
• “You’re a child abuser. I mean, honestly, I should call DCFS on you because you’ve abused these children for two years. What you have done and what people like you do to people all over this country is a disgrace.”
Product Spotlight: Lexis® Verdict & Settlement Analyzer
Put away the guesswork—Lexis® Verdict & Settlement Analyzer helps legal professionals assess case potential with confidence by using data-driven insights from the industry’s largest collection of verdicts and settlements.
In his answer to the ethics complaint, Bush says he “vigorously contested” the charges against him. He says his comments to the judge were protected First Amendment speech. He went on to say that the judge suffered from an “undiagnosed brain tumor” causing memory loss and erratic behavior, and that the judge “just spent an entire hearing, recorded on video, eating peanuts and demeaning the 25-30 bystanders as the ‘peanut gallery.’”
And there’s more:
Bush said the judge violated the remand order and flip-flopped on whether to grant him parenting time. Judges are “no longer privileged to the normal courtesies” when they abuse their power and an Illinois appeals court mandate, Bush wrote.
As for his comments about opposing counsel? Well, Bush is going for a “truth” defense:
“Domestic relations attorneys are well known amongst the bar and the public to be bottom-feeders,” he wrote in the answer. Bush said he has “spoken to ethics attorneys for years who note the volume of complaints they receive involving these attorneys and call these attorneys bottom-feeders themselves. Domestic relations attorneys generally graduate from third- and fourth-tier law schools and will do almost anything for money, including suborn perjury from mentally ill parents.”
Bush also compared the entire proceeding to child trafficking:
“This commission is apparently lost and cannot distinguish between the cloak of authority and the cloak of corruption,” Bush wrote. “Domestic relations courts and their surrounding cottage industries are predatory and resemble organized crime—seizing children from fit parents and then selling them back with unnecessary and unwanted ‘services.’ That is none other than child trafficking.”
I’m sure comparing the court to a criminal enterprise will be a real hit with the disciplinary commission…
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).