Legal Ethics

There’s Only One ‘E’ In Judgment

It’s incredible how judges and lawyers lose control in certain situations.

By Jill Switzer on November 18, 2021 2:46 pm

(Photo by Amanda Edwards/Getty)

I am always amazed at the level of bad judgment bench officers and lawyers seem to have. You would think that by the time peeps have passed the bar and been in practice for at least a nanosecond, they would have judgment (one “e” only), but you would be wrong. In any event, here’s just a few of the more recent antics. “What were they thinking?” That’s the Final Jeopardy question. And the Final Jeopardy answer is that “they weren’t.” I know, I have reversed them; work with me here.

It’s incredible how judges and lawyers lose control in certain situations, given that we, as a profession, are supposed to be in control for much, if not all, of the time. Here’s a perfect example of how the Michigan Attorney General lost control when tailgating at a football game. She said that after two bloody mary cocktails, she was so plastered that she needed a wheelchair. Given all the conspiracy stories that have run rampant in Michigan and the attendant litigation (Kraken lawsuit anyone?), any Michigan public official might well have thought that this was a good way to relax. Only this AG went above and beyond.

Here’s a judge who could use a refresher course in constitutional law, especially the 4th Amendment rules about search and seizure. Picture this: you were just sitting in a courtroom, minding your own business. You were only there because your boyfriend had an appearance. Suddenly, you were hauled in front of the judge. He ordered you to take a drug test, what would you say? Say what? No, I am not making this up.

Yes, judges do have a lot of authority, but this judicial officer went over the top in demanding the woman submit to a drug test without any reason for other than his mistaken belief that she was under the influence. The woman refused to take such a test and ended up in jail for a 10-day sentence for contempt for refusing to do so. Now, the judge has been suspended for one year. Is that sufficient? Has he learned anything at all? What do you think? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This judge suffers from robe-itis in extremis.

Years ago, one of my colleagues complained about his opposing counsel (does that sound familiar?)  He was aggravated and didn’t know how to manage opposing counsel’s arrogance and elitist attitude. I suggested that the next time the two of them had an appearance, that they should go outside the courtroom, drop trou and compare, and whoever had the bigger one would win the case. I’m reminded of this when I read the story about the lawyer who did just that, dropped trou while trying to get through courthouse security. This Pittsburgh lawyer was frustrated because his suspenders kept setting off the alarm, so he decided to ditch the pants to get through. It worked, but he stood there only in his shirt and briefs for all in the family law court to see. Charged with disorderly conduct, the attorney admitted he had used bad judgment. How refreshing! Usually, an excuse is a variation on “the dog ate my homework.”

To the utter surprise of absolutely no one, Facebook posts can end up causing heartburn. One of the many problems is that not everyone has the same sense of humor, no one can see a writer’s tongue in cheek in such posts. Humor can be so individual that other peeps don’t get it. A Tennessee judge learned that the hard way when he posted several comments about advice on how to avoid arrests that he thought were funny but not everyone agreed. His humor drew a public reprimand.

Differing senses of humor (and some people just don’t have any) is one of the many issues I see with social media. In addition to often making a fool of oneself or worse, people see things differently, react to things differently. So, I think there also should be a warning to people before they post, a “Danger Ahead” sign or some wording that will make peeps stop and think and think again before going off on a rant, funny or otherwise, that may well boomerang and create reputational repercussions, among other consequences. We all have been in situations where jokes fell flat or worse.

And memo to all, don’t pawn your client’s jewelry. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney who did just that. The attorney had been hired to prepare trust documents for a couple and decided to help herself to some of the client’s jewelry. She then pawned it, claiming it was her own. She pleaded guilty to two felonies. Not a good look. If you want to avoid disciplinary action for hocking goods, make sure they’re yours to hock.

Are you appalled yet? In Alabama, a probate judge has been appropriately tossed from the bench for various judicial canon violations. Among the incidents that led to his ouster were asking the only Black employee in the probate court about his new Mercedes. The judge said that he could not afford a new Mercedes; he asked the employee if he was selling drugs. That was just one of a number of racist remarks, including a disparaging comment about the death of George Floyd. The judge also made inappropriate comments about sexual acts and made sexist comments about women.

Some people just don’t know how to put a cork in it.

Do you think that any of these peeps know how to spell “judgment?”  I’m just asking.

Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at [email protected].