The broadest public access to the courts is a basic democratic imperative. That representing uncompromising clients is the road to disbarment exposes the state-bar’s public-protection hoax, as the state-bar sanctions system serves as an antidemocratic screen to keep unruly parties out of court.Avoid problem clients. If the client has wildly unrealistic expectations, wants much [more] justice than he or she can afford, or has had several prior lawyers all of whom are liars and cheats, it may be prudent not to get involved.
Representing difficult clients may be the premier cause of lawyers being disbarred. (Avoiding problem clients was Frisch's premier advice.) Does
Mike Frisch see the implications? Where the risk of bar sanctions depends on
client selection rather than acts of malfeasance, the discipline system is
fundamentally unjust. Since his clients’ predisposition to complain sets the risk
for an attorney’s disbarment, then either
charges (and the almost inevitable conviction) are largely trumped up or the offending conduct is quasi-universal,
with the issuance of charges tantamount to selective prosecution. How many
attorneys have never made a
trust-account mistake?
The
state bars’ fishing-expedition
pleading methods and investigatory practices are designed to guarantee
conviction. Most respondents are
convicted (of something), although most charges
are dismissed with prejudice.
These
practices express the mere-appearance-of-impropriety dogma, which I have identified
as the ideological
underpinning of state-bar oppression. The real offense prosecuted is diminishing
the status of the legal profession by eliciting a colorable complaint or representing
unruly parties.
Concern for appearance over substance is a tendency inherent in law, especially
in matters of ethics, but democracy’s depth is measured by rejection of this
hypocrisy.
