Are you sitting down? You should probably sit down so that the shock isn’t too much. I’ll wait.
Ok. Now that you are sitting down. It does not appear that the bar regulators in my state are very interested in holding powerful lawyers accountable for their conduct.
Readers of the blog know that on Monday I submitted a bar complaint against Pam Bondi in Tennessee for her public remarks that were aimed at materially prejudicing criminal proceedings here in Tennessee. That complaint also named Rob McGuire, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee with an allegation of not complying with his obligations under RPC 3.8(f).
You will not be shocked to hear that yesterday, less than 24 hours after receiving the complaint, the TN BPR has referred the complaint against Ms. Bondi to Florida. I did, in part, suggest that approach in my complaint so that TN could get confirmation that the Florida Bar is fully committed to doing nothing about Ms. Bondi as long as she has her current position. She is a sycophant to a man who claimed that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose support. But it also appears that she could actually shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and the Florida Bar would shrug its shoulders and say they can’t do anything since she is the Attorney General of the United States.
When you truly think about how zealously the Florida Bar attempts to regulate conduct like advertising not only of its own lawyers but other lawyers, it is so bizarre that it has such a commitment to going “pencils down” on the conduct of one of its own lawyers on issues of actual real importance and danger to real people.
When the Florida Bar does what it inevitably will do — refuse to examine Ms. Bondi’s conduct — I will be back in touch with the TN BPR for a clear answer of whether it will take its opportunity to demonstrate that the ethics rules apply equally to lawyers of all stripes.
You might be (but maybe shouldn’t be) shocked to hear that, as to the portion of the complaint against Mr. McGuire, the Board declined to even open a file in response to the complaint. Instead, I got this email:
In other words, my complaint identifying Mr. McGuire’s ethical obligation written directly into the ethics rule to discourage Ms. Bondi from unethically saying the things she said during her press conference is being described as not an allegation of ethical misconduct by an attorney such that the Board is disclaiming even having jurisdiction to deal with it.
There are so many instances in which lawyers have had to pay me to respond to disciplinary complaints that the Board should have, on its face, been able to scrutinize and send the exact kind of email I received above. But they routinely do not do that and, instead, open a file, slap a form cover letter on a submission, and demand my clients respond to the rantings of people to whom those lawyers have no obligations at all. I am sure there is no reason to be cynical about the fact that it decided to do something different with respect to my complaint.
I do look forward, for future disciplinary defense clients, to pointing out that Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 3.8(f) or at least parts of it are simply not enforceable as sanctionable conduct in Tennessee.
I am certain the BPR will act consistently on this issue in the future.