him of misconduct during a deposition the accusation was that he passed a note to his client while she was answering question and that he lied to the opposing counsel by denying for misconduct defined in these rules in for good cause shown and if the notice in an opportunity to be heard any attorney admitted to practice before the school it may be his spied suspended reprimanded was subjected to such on the discipline as circumstances were local rule eighty three point six eight eighty it is first attorney specially admitted it provides that whenever an attorney applies to be in this local rules eighty three point six five see and do you provide that  process and he said that there were no rules that apply and therefore you applied his own set of rules your honor and what he did is you nor those rules the local rules you followed his own procedures which rule thirty rule twenty the rule thirty seven rule twenty six district court has an ability to hear disputes concerning discovery behavior depositions and to sanction  misconduct right and as i understand what the the district court did he clarified that he'd held a hearing on a rule thirty issue concerning conduct and made certain findings and issued sanctions specifically monetary sanctions and then a show cause order why why couldn't this judge because we both are because that was a that was the october twenty fourth year in russia and at that hearing was it he actually sit down for a status hearing the judge converted that to a evidentiary hearing in which he made specific kinds of misconduct on the basis of the opposing counsel filing a motion  the record that i read the judge didn't convert it to that the counsel opposing counsel had notified the court in advance and notified your client in advance that this behavior had occurred in a deposition they then brought it up and then without objection right but not a motion for revoking the prologue beecher that didn't even come up until after the judge threw out all the evidence at which time he asked counsel opposing counsel are you also filing a motion for pro hockey feature then held a hearing given that that in rule thirty discovery dispute the judge found with evidence that your client lied and he was lying to the judge there that day you know what isn't he doomed from that point reporter says no it wasn't it had additional writing on it why can't a trial judge decide i believe the court reporter i don't believe your client he can you run or accept that he started out with  there by saying that he was applying prior troubles to was decision making at that hearing in the fact that mr ryan had he as he claimed had previously lied to about an amended complain respond when opposing counsel asked him to turn over the paper or to move the person that that somehow made him into a liar in your run of that's just not the kind of that's not the kind of more a lawyer is not required to for a meaningful hearing and that's why the problems arose in the evidence that the judge found at this hearing that was not noticed was insufficient to support what his findings were insufficient to support the the only witness there who was not tied to anybody else that there was writing there was one note on the paper she saw a second no go in the paper she saw mr iott moving where she saw him take it out of the room and then what he presented to the court was not the no pad with the two notes on it it wasn't the person it wasn't that he didn't show me the note although that play some role in it because again mr ryan then told the court that day that very day when his memory would be the freshest and after he had ordered the transcript that i had not asked to see the note in fact as the core pointed out that again was  because we were in court originally because mr ryan had sought to take the deposition of another witness and was moving to compel that in response to that i had submitted the documents and the court had all of that in front of it as itself but the point was and this is never been disputed here it wasn't in the complaint he stuck it in the complaint he didn't ask he didn't tell me and he didn't tell the court and that was really all that the court was very troubled by rule thirty discovery dispute make certain findings issues a sanction and as i understand also issued an order to show cause the scheduled briefing on the question of whether he should be removed from practice  on that issue if he had asked the judge to follow the rule eighty three procedure how does the judge have been obligated to do that is mandatory the judge must follow request then those should be referred out so there's a series of cases where judges have penalized attorneys for asking the judge to recuse him or herself those should be then sent out those would be the ones if the judge can't remove himself or herself from the proceedings enough then those will go to the three judge panel where all these other cases including the one in rhode island third circuit  talk about that there was no hearing without ever addressing the fact that in numerous of these cases submissions on the papers are sufficient for both to process purposes and for the role that says that there should be  interest and you know in this day and age of people practicing in different courts that there should be some concern for rights for the revocation it would seem that if you're going to do something that's going to have such an impact on somebody evidence before the court of what happened at that moment was actually the court reporter on this story is client athlete hearing said that she did not see whether he wrote anything position and she did not see before it was removed from the honor in this case the judge was considering what happened there and there was clear and convincing evidence and it's clear that the judge also took into account what happened with the amended complain the why he finds that mr ryan it payton lee lied and that's because he didn't do what resign kramer asked them to at the hearing i don't see how that becomes clear in convincing evidence of a lie that he failed to do that why would the even expect a second this is the rule there's a rule governing what you should do when this attorney misconduct allegations and i which i went over already and that's the obligation of the judge to follow those rules it's not the obligation of the council to demand that the judge follow his rules the judge is supposed to do that because that's required about is when these allegations of misconduct and it comes to the attention of a judicial officer it says he may get an investigator or someone else appoint someone like the baka consul to do an investigation but when a did that the judge did not refer the matter to the chief judge to send it to a three person committee the procedures weren't followed that should have been followed that's what that's why this case ended up the way it did the judge was acting on his own making all these decisions that is not and it's not right and this should be the judges just like everybody else should be made to follow the procedures that have been set up by the district court to deal with the