Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-mc-00025/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-mc-00025-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In re Tajudeen O. Oladiran. )

)

)

)

No. MC-10-0025-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Judge Snow issued an order requiring attorney Tajudeen Oladiran to show cause why

he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court or otherwise disciplined

pursuant to Rule 83.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona (“Local Rules”). Doc. 78, Oladiran v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., No. CV09-01471-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz. Feb. 26, 2010) (the “Suntrust case”). The Clerk set up a

separate case file and it was assigned to the undersigned judge for resolution of the order to

show cause (the “OSC”). Doc. 1, In re Oladiran, No. MC-10-00025-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.

Feb. 26, 2010). This Court appointed Assistant United States Attorney Peter Lantka to

prosecute the charges brought in the OSC. Docs. 4, 5. Mr. Oladiran has filed a response to

the OSC (Doc. 17), and the special prosecutor has filed a reply (Doc. 24). Oral argument was

held on August 12, 2010. Docs. 28, 29. For reasons set forth below, the Court finds by clear

and convincing evidence that Mr. Oladiran engaged in professional misconduct and should

be suspended from practicing before this Court for six months. The Court addresses Mr.

Oladiran’s medical evidence in a separate sealed order. 

“‘In the federal system there is no uniform procedure for disciplinary proceedings.

The individual judicial districts are free to define the rules to be followed and the grounds

for punishment.’” In re Lehtinen, 564 F.3d 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.2 governs attorney discipline in this Court, and provides

that the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 42 (“Ethical Rules” or

“ER”), shall apply to attorneys authorized to practice before the Court. LRCiv 83.2(e).

Under Ethical Rule 8.4, it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “violate or attempt to

violate the Rules of Professional Conduct” or to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the

administration of justice[.]” ER 8.4(a), (d). 

The OSC sets forth four charges of professional misconduct against Mr. Oladiran.

Doc. 1. Charge I is based on a motion filed in the Suntrust case in which Mr. Oladiran made

disparaging statements about Judge Bolton. Id. at 2-3. Charge II concerns a related lawsuit

brought by Mr. Oladiran against Judges Bolton and Snow. Id. at 3-4; see Oladiran v. Bolton,

No. CV-09-02633-PHX-JWS (D. Ariz. Dec. 18, 2009). Charge III involves Mr. Oladiran’s

conduct as counsel in a civil rights action, Okonkwo v. Glendale Union High School Dist.,

No. CV-08-00633-PHX-MHM (D. Ariz. Apr. 2, 2008) (the “Glendale case”), and a separate

suit he brought on behalf of the civil rights plaintiff against Judges Murguia and Anderson,

Okonkwo v. Murguia, No. CV-09-02604-PHX-JWS (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2009). Id. at 4-6.

Charge IV alleges that Mr. Oladiran made threatening statements to private attorneys in the

Suntrust case. Id. at 6-8. 

Mr. Oladiran responds to the charges by asserting that any unethical behavior on his

part was caused by a medical illness. Doc. 17 at 1-2. He has submitted sealed copies of his

medical records in support of that defense. Docs. 25, 26. The special prosecutor argues that

Mr. Oladiran’s actions constitute textbook examples of professional misconduct, that there

is no evidence of a causal connection between his medical illness and the misconduct, and

that Mr. Oladiran has not otherwise shown cause why he should not be disbarred from the

practice of law in this Court. Doc. 24.

I. Charge I: Motion for an “Honest and Honorable Court System.”

In the Suntrust case, Mr. Oladiran, as plaintiff, sued his mortgage lender and others

for fraud and racketeering. Doc. 1, Oladiran v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., No. CV-09-01471-

PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. July 16, 2009). Mr. Oladiran sought a preliminary injunction to prevent

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

the trustee’s sale of one of his houses. Doc. 17. During a scheduling conference on that

motion (Doc. 32), Judge Bolton authorized each side to take two depositions (Doc. 44 at 16).

Mr. Oladiran noticed the depositions of two bank executives for September 29 and 30, 2009

(Docs. 35, 36) and traveled to Atlanta for the depositions, but the deponents did not appear.

In an order dated October 1, 2009, Judge Bolton vacated the preliminary injunction hearing

on the ground that the trustee’s sale had been cancelled, and denied as moot a pending

motion for protective order that sought to cancel the depositions noticed by Mr. Oladiran.

Doc. 46.

The same day, Mr. Oladiran filed a document titled “Motion for a[n] Honest and

Honorable Court System.” Doc. 48. The caption referred to the “Dishonorable” Susan R.

Bolton and described Judge Bolton as a “brainless coward.” The motion closed with this

apparent threat:

This motion is filed by [Oladiran], pursuant to the law of, what goes

around comes around. Judge Bolton, I just read your Order and am very

disappointed in the fact that a brainless coward like you is a federal judge.

I accused Suntrust Bank of racketeering etc., and many good lawyers

in town told me the bank’s executives would never be deposed, and that the

case would go nowhere. I stupidly stuck to the notion that everyone is equal

under the law etc. Boy was I wrong. The bank cancelled depositions set by

the court, cancelled a hearing set by the court, and walked away without as

much as a scratch.

My thanks go out to [opposing counsel] who both warned me that I

would lose (I should have listened to them).

I apologize to all my clients. I know, I’m sorry does not repair the mess

I made but, that’s all I’ve got.

To my family, words can’t express my apologies; please remember me

kindly.

Finally, to Susan Bolton, we shall meet again you know where. (

Id. at 1-2; see Doc. 1 at 11-13, In re Oladiran, No. MC-10-00075-PHX-DGC.

On the basis of this filing, the OSC charges Mr. Oladiran with violation of Ethical

Rules 3.1, 3.5(d), 4.4(a), 8.2(a), and 8.4(d). Doc. 1 at 2-3. The special prosecutor argues that

each rule has been violated. Doc. 24 at 3-6. The Court finds violations of Rules 3.1, 3.5(d),

and 8.4(d).

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 3 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

A. Ethical Rule 3.1 – Meritorious Claims and Contentions.

Ethical Rule 3.1 provides that a lawyer may not file a motion “unless there is a good

faith basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous[.]” ER 3.1. Mr. Oladiran’s

“motion for an honest and honorable court system” is frivolous and was not filed in good

faith. The motion concerns Judge Bolton’s cancellation of a preliminary injunction hearing

that was rendered moot by postponement of a trustee’s sale, and her denial as moot of a

motion for protective order concerning the depositions Mr. Oladiran had noticed for Atlanta.

Mr. Oladiran was upset that the deponents failed to appear in Atlanta, but his frustration

provided no justification for suggesting that Judge Bolton treated him unequally, favored the

powerful, was a brainless coward, or was dishonorable. The motion, which sought no

tangible relief, was nothing more than an intemperate assault on the integrity of the Court and

a judicial officer. The motion violated Ethical Rule 3.1.

B. Ethical Rule 4.4(a) – Respect for Rights of Others.

Rule 4.4(a) provides that “[i]n representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that

have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden any other person[.]”

ER 4.4(a). The Court concludes, however, that this rule is not directed at the protection of

judges. Ethical rules generally “are not designed to shield judges from unpleasant or

offensive criticism[.]” Standing Comm. on Discipline v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430, 1437

(9th Cir. 1995). “Public criticism of judges and the decisions they make is not unusual[.]”

Id. at 1444. While ethical rules often prohibit false statements of fact impugning the integrity

of judges, those rules are meant “to preserve public confidence in the fairness and

impartiality of our system of justice,” rather than to protect judges from embarrassment. Id.

at 1437.

The comment to Rule 4.4(a) explains that the rule seeks to protect litigants and thirdparties from unnecessary embarrassment and undue delays and burdens. ER 4.4(a), cmt. 1

(2003 amend.) (protections “include legal restrictions on methods of obtaining evidence from

others and unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships, such as the client-lawyer

relationship”). Given this focus on the rights of litigants and third parties, the Court finds

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 4 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

that Rule 4.4(a) does not apply to Mr. Oladiran’s motion.

C. Ethical Rule 8.2(a) – Judicial and Legal Officials.

Ethical Rule 8.2(a) applies to statements about judges: “A lawyer shall not make a

statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity

concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge[.]” ER 8.2(a). This Circuit has made

clear that “attorneys may be sanctioned for impugning the integrity of a judge or the court

only if their statements are false[.]” Yagman, 55 F.3d at 1438. It follows that the statements

must be “capable of being proved true or false; statements of opinion are protected by the

First Amendment[.]” Id.

Mr. Oladiran’s motion refers to Judge Bolton as “dishonorable” and a “brainless

coward.” These statements do not have “specific, well-defined meanings [that] describe

objectively verifiable matters,” but instead appear to be meant in a “‘loose, figurative

sense.’” Id. The statements constitute “‘rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true

or false,” and “convey nothing more substantive than [Oladiran’s] contempt for Judge

[Bolton].” Id. at 1440. As a result, they are protected by the First Amendment and cannot

be found to violate Ethical Rule 8.2(a). See id. at 1440-42 (statements that a judge was

“dishonest,” “ignorant,” “ill-tempered,” a “buffoon,” and a “bully” were constitutionally

immune from sanctions).

Mr. Oladiran’s motion could be viewed as making a factual assertion that Judge

Bolton conspired with Suntrust to vacate the preliminary injunction hearing and cancel the

depositions. Before sanctions could be based on the falsity of such an assertion, however,

the special prosecutor would have to prove its falsity. See id. at 1438, 1441. While the Court

does not believe for a minute that Judge Bolton conspired with Suntrust, the special

prosecutor did not attempt to present evidence on this issue (see Doc. 24 at 3-6) and the

Court may not relieve the special prosecutor of his burden of proof. See Yagman, 555 F.3d

at 1441-42. Without proof of falsity, Mr. Oladiran’s motion is not sanctionable for

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 5 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The special prosecutor notes that Mr. Oladiran’s motion was published on the

Internet legal blog Above The Law.com. Doc. 24 at 5 & n.3. That publication, however, did

not impugn the integrity of Judge Bolton, but of Mr. Oladiran. The motion was described

as “one of the craziest motions” ever published and on Above The Law’s “motion of the day”

feature. The motion was described as a “lesson on how not to address the court,” and Mr.

Oladiran was mocked for his “frustration” with Judge Bolton and his use of the “most

menacing smiley emoticon ever.” See http://abovethelaw.com/2009/10/motion-of-the-daywe-shall-meet-again-you- know-where/ (Oct. 23, 2009, 2:40 PM) (last visited Aug. 30,

2010). 

- 6 -

impugning the integrity of Judge Bolton. See id.1

D. Ethical Rule 8.4(d) – Misconduct.

Ethical Rule 8.4(d) prohibits “conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of

justice.” ER 8.4(d). “The Supreme Court has held that speech otherwise entitled to full

constitutional protection may nonetheless be sanctioned if it obstructs or prejudices the

administration of justice.” Yagman, 555 F.3d at 1442 (citing Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.,

501 U.S. 1030, 1074-75 (1991)). Given the significant burden this rule places on otherwise

protected speech, the “prejudice to the administration of justice must be highly likely before

speech may be punished.” Id.

While an attorney’s personal attack on a judge does not require recusal, “judges

occasionally do remove themselves voluntarily from cases as a result of harsh criticism from

attorneys.” Id. at 1443-44. In the Suntrust case, Judge Bolton was not only the target of Mr.

Oladiran’s harsh criticism, but also of his threat. This resulted in an entirely foreseeable

investigation by the United States Marshals Service (see Doc. 78 at 2) and ultimately in

Judge Bolton’s recusal. In an order dated October 15, 2009, Judge Bolton recused herself

and vacated the scheduling conference set for November 30, 2009. Doc. 50. The case was

reassigned to Judge Snow (id.), and he reset the scheduling conference for February 26, 2010

(Doc. 59). Mr. Oladiran’s filing of the motion prejudiced the administration of justice by

interfering with the random assignment of judges, see Yagman, 55 F.3d at 1444, and

hindering the timely and efficient resolution of the litigation. The motion violated Ethical

Rule 8.4(d).

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 6 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

E. Ethical Rule 3.5(d) – Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal.

Ethical Rule 3.5(d) provides that a lawyer shall not “engage in conduct likely to

disrupt a tribunal.” ER 3.5(d). A lawyer’s “function is to present evidence and argument so

that the cause may be decided according to law[,]” while “[r]efraining from abusive and

obstreperous conduct[.]” ER 3.5(d), cmt. 4 (2003 amend.). Mr. Oladiran’s motion plainly

violated this rule. It was abusive, obstreperous, and disrupted the proceedings before Judge

Bolton. 

F. Mr. Oladiran’s Response to Charge I.

Disturbingly, Mr. Oladiran’s response to the OSC seeks to justify his motion. Mr.

Oladiran refers to the motion as a “Whistleblower Pleading,” implying that he was somehow

publicizing wrongdoing. He also asserts that the motion was “precipitated [in part] by the

conduct of Judge Bolton[.]” Doc. 17 at 12. 

Mr. Oladiran also misstates facts, asserting repeatedly that Judge Bolton “ordered”

him to take the depositions in Atlanta when Judge Bolton clearly did not order them. She

allowed each side to take two depositions of their own choosing before the preliminary

injunction hearing. See Doc. 44 at 16, Oladiran v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., No. CV-09-

01471-PHX-SRB. 

Mr. Oladiran’s efforts to justify his motion and his mischaracterization of the record

suggest a continuing disregard of his ethical duties. They also undercut his claim that past

ethical breaches were caused by his former medical condition.

II. Charge II: Mr. Oladiran’s Lawsuit Against Judges Bolton and Snow.

Shortly after the Suntrust case was reassigned, Mr. Oladiran filed a lawsuit against

Judges Bolton and Snow alleging that they conspired to violate his civil rights – Judge

Bolton by permitting the Atlanta deposition to be cancelled and Judge Snow by failing to

rectify her wrongdoing. Doc. 1, Oladiran v. Bolton, No. CV-09-02633-PHX-JWS (D. Ariz.

Dec. 18, 2009). That case was assigned to Judge Sedwick, a visiting judge from Alaska, who

promptly found it to be frivolous and dismissed it on the ground of judicial immunity.

Doc. 11. Judge Sedwick commented: “In eighteen years on the bench, this judge has seen

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 7 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

a number of lawsuits like this one which were foreclosed by the doctrine of judicial

immunity. However, every one of them was filed by a party proceeding pro se. Mr.

Oladiran is the first lawyer who has ever filed such a lawsuit[.]” Id. at 6. Judge Sedwick

imposed a $500 sanction on Mr. Oladiran for violation of Rule 11. Docs. 13, 20. Mr.

Oladiran appealed Judge Sedwick’s dismissal, but the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed and

found the issues raised on appeal “so insubstantial as not to require further argument.”

Doc. 19-1 at 1. 

The special prosecutor argues that Mr. Oladiran’s suit against Judges Bolton and

Snow violates Ethical Rules 3.1 and 4.4(a). The Court agrees.

Mr. Oladiran’s suit plainly was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity. This

doctrine, fundamental to an independent judiciary, is well known to members of the bar. Mr.

Oladiran’s lawsuit clearly violated Rule 3.1’s prohibition against filing suit “unless there is

a good faith basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous[.]” ER 3.1. Mr. Oladiran

also violated Rule 4.4(a) because the retaliatory suit had “no substantial purpose” other than

to embarrass and burden Judges Bolton and Snow. ER 4.4(a); see Standing Comm. on

Discipline v. Ross, 735 F.2d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The canon of professional ethics

impose on every lawyer the obligation ‘not to clog the courts with frivolous motions or

appeals.’”).

III. Charge III: The Glendale Case and Suit Against Judges Murguia and Anderson.

Mr. Oladiran filed an employment discrimination and civil rights complaint on behalf

of Charles Okonkwo, a former employee of the Glendale Union High School District.

Doc. 1-3, Okonkwo v. Glendale Union High School Dist., No. CV-08-00633-PHX-MHM (D.

Ariz. Apr. 2, 2008). During the course of the lawsuit, Mr. Oladiran filed multiple motions

to extend discovery deadlines (Docs. 24, 48, 63) without ever engaging in meaningful

discovery (see Doc. 91 at 2), failed to file a required settlement conference memorandum (see

Docs. 21, 36), and openly refused to comply with Judge Murguia’s orders (see Docs. 73, 82,

85, 86). The latter conduct was particularly brazen. When Judge Murguia ordered Mr.

Oladiran to file a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, he responded:

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 8 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

“Counsel for Plaintiff WILL NOT comply with the Murguia 2/4/10 Order, and WILL NOT

file any response on behalf of Plaintiff to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”

Doc. 86 (emphasis in original). Mr. Oladiran’s conduct ultimately resulted in dismissal of

Mr. Okonkwo’s complaint. Doc. 91. 

The special prosecutor argues correctly that Mr. Oladiran’s conduct violated Ethical

Rules 1.1 and 1.3. Rule 1.1 provides that “[a] lawyer shall provide competent representation

to a client,” which requires “the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation

reasonably necessary for the representation.” Rule 1.3 requires that a lawyer “act with

reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.” Mr. Oladiran violated both

rules by failing to provide competent and diligent representation to his client. 

While the Glendale case was still pending, Mr. Oladiran filed a civil rights suit on

behalf of Mr. Okonkwo against Judges Murguia and Anderson. Doc. 1, Okonkwo v.

Murguia, No. CV-09-02604-PHX-JWS (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2009). The complaint alleged that

Judge Murguia conspired with Judge Anderson and the defendants in the Glendale case to

prejudice Mr. Okonkwo’s rights by, among other things, mandating a settlement conference

before Judge Anderson and allowing him to impose sanctions against Mr. Okonkwo. Id.

The suit was dismissed by Judge Sedwick as “patently frivolous” (Doc. 13), and monetary

sanctions were imposed (Docs. 13, 25, 31).

Judge Murguia clearly had authority to require Mr. Oladiran’s client to appear at the

settlement conference, and Judge Anderson acted reasonably in imposing sanctions. More

importantly, the actions of these judges were judicial acts protected by the doctrine of judicial

immunity. Mr. Oladiran’s lawsuit against the judges violated Rule 3.1’s prohibition against

bringing a proceeding “unless there is a good faith basis in law and fact for doing so that is

not frivolous,” and Rule 4.4(a)’s prohibition against representing a client through means

which have “no substantial purpose” other than to embarrass and burden the adverse parties.

IV. Charge IV: Mr. Oladiran’s Comments to Private Attorneys.

In February 2010, Mr. Oladiran sought information about attorney John Clemency,

who previously had served as a mediator in the Suntrust case. Mr. Oladiran believed that

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 9 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

Mr. Clemency had improperly advised Suntrust not to settle. Doc. 17 at 27. Not satisfied

with answers provided by Mr. Clemency, Mr. Oladiran responded with the following email:

You and Mr. Folks (Suntrust) conspire to destroy me, at the same time you

pretend to be my friend. May Allah judge you and punish you with extreme

prejudice. I tried to end this case even though I know of the corruption

surrounding me; however, you and your co-conspirators will not leave me

alone or let me leave or live. I repeat again: I do not fear any of you and

your purchased help; I will fight until Allah gives me victory, even if it takes

the rest of my life.

Doc. 1 at 52-54 (emphases in original), In re Oladiran, No. CV-10-00025-PHX-DGC. When

opposing counsel, Kathleen Weber, denied having the information sought, Mr. Oladiran sent

her the following email:

Ms. Weber: Thanks for your responses. I do not believe you but, since you

are all willing to join in the lie, we move on. However, in the name of Allah,

I assure that if you continue to play Russian roulette with me, sooner or later,

you will all lose, InsaAllah.

Id. at 43-45.

Mr. Oladiran does not dispute making these statements. He claims the “Russian

roulette” statement “was meant to convey his prediction that, eventually, a judge would rule

against Suntrust in a critical motion and Suntrust would regret not agreeing to a settlement

when it had a chance.” Doc. 17 at 28. Mr. Oladiran denies threatening Ms. Weber with any

physical harm. Id.

The OSC states that to the extent Mr. Oladiran’s comments may be construed as

threatening, Mr. Oladiran may have committed an “act that reflects adversely on” his “fitness

as a lawyer” in violation of Ethical Rule 8.4(b). Id. at 8. The special prosecutor makes no

argument that Mr. Oladiran has violated Rule 8.4(b). See Doc. 24 at 17-20. Moreover, that

rule applies only where a lawyer has committed a criminal act, see ER 8.4(b), and the special

prosecutor has not shown that Mr. Oladiran’s statements rose to the level of criminal acts.

The OSC further states that Mr. Oladiran’s comments suggest an intent to delay the

Suntrust case in violation of Ethical Rule 4.4(a). Doc. 1 at 8. Although the effect of Mr.

Oladiran’s statements may have been to delay the case, ethical violations must be established

by clear and convincing evidence. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 48(d); Rosenthal v. Justices of the

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 10 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The special prosecutor asserts that Mr. Oladiran’s comments were meant to

“embarrass” and “burden” opposing counsel in violation of Rule 4.4(a) (Doc. 24 at 19), but

the OSC contains no such charge (see Doc. 1 at 6-8). Because due process requires that Mr.

Oladiran be provided notice of both “‘the particular alleged misconduct and of the particular

authority under which the court is planning to proceed,’” In re Lehtinen, 564 F.3d 1052, 1060

(9th Cir. 2009), the Court will not impose sanctions on the basis of this rule.

- 11 -

Sup. Ct. of Cal., 910 F.2d 561, 564 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court cannot conclude by clear and

convincing evidence that Mr. Oladiran’s statements were intended to delay the proceedings.

See Doc. 1 at 8.2

The OSC cites Ethical Rules 3.4 and 3.5 (Doc. 1 at 8), but the special prosecutor does

not argue that those rules have been violated. No violation of Rules 3.4 or 3.5 has been

established in connection with Mr. Oladiran’s comments to counsel.

In a document filed in the Suntrust case, Mr. Oladiran accused Judge Snow of

presenting a “biased rendition of the ‘facts’” and stated that “whatever Suntrust wants in this

action, Suntrust gets.” Doc. 1 at 50-51. The OSC asserts, correctly, that those statements

implicate Ethical Rule 8.2(a)’s prohibition against false statements of fact concerning the

qualifications or integrity of a judge. Id. at 1. The special prosecutor asserts that Mr.

Oladiran’s assertion of bias on the part of Judge Snow violates Rule 8.2(a). Doc. 24 at

19-20. As explained above, however, the special prosecutor has the burden of proving the

falsity of Mr. Oladiran’s statements. See Yagman, 555 F.3d at 1438, 1441. Evidence of false

statements sufficient to establish a violation of Rule 8.2(a) has not been presented by the

special prosecutor. 

In summary, the Court concludes that the ethical violations alleged in Charge IV of

the OSC have not been established. The Court accordingly need not address Mr. Oladiran’s

argument that Charge IV should be dismissed because Ms. Weber did not testify at the OSC

hearing. See Doc. 17 at 34-35.

V. Mr. Oladiran’s Mental State.

Mr. Oladiran argues that a lawyer’s actions may not be regarded as ethical misconduct

absent a showing of subjective intent. Doc. 17 at 31. He claims that he had no intent to

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 11 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

commit the misconduct alleged in the OSC, and that his actions “were unplanned, caused by

his medical illness, and/or precipitated by the actions of other actors and force majure[.]”

Id. at 1-2. The Court finds below and in a sealed order that Mr. Oladiran’s misconduct was

knowing, and was not caused entirely by his medical illness. 

VI. Due Process.

Local Rule 83.2 provides that an attorney may be disciplined “after such hearing as

the Court may in each particular instance direct.” LRCiv 83.2(a). While the Court may have

discretion on how to proceed under Local Rule 83.2, this Circuit has made clear that a

“‘lawyer subject to discipline is entitled to due process, including notice and an opportunity

to be heard.’” In re Lehtinen, 564 F.3d 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). The

notice requirement is satisfied where the court “‘notifies the person charged both of the

particular alleged misconduct and of the particular authority under which the court is

planning to proceed.’” Id. (citation omitted). An “opportunity to brief the issue fully

satisfies” the requirement that the person be provided an opportunity to be heard. Pac.

Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc., 210 F.3d 1112, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000).

Mr. Oladiran has been provided all the process due under the Constitution. The OSC

sets forth the factual basis for each charge of professional misconduct and the specific ethical

rules that may have been violated. Doc. 1. Mr. Oladiran was given an opportunity to address

the charges both in written briefing – he chose the order of briefing (Doc. 10 at 4) – and at

the hearing held on August 12, 2010. Mr. Oladiran has received adequate notice of the

charges against him and a fair opportunity “to argue that his actions were an acceptable

means of representing his client, to present mitigating circumstances, or to apologize to the

court for his conduct.” Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005). 

VII. Sanctions.

The purpose of attorney discipline “is to protect the public, the profession and

the system of justice.” In re Neville, 708 P.2d 1297, 1307 (Ariz. 1985). “Sanctions are

not imposed upon the offending lawyer to punish, but to deter.” Id. In determining the

appropriate sanction, a court should consider the duty violated, the lawyer’s mental state, the

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 12 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer’s misconduct, and the existence of

aggravating and mitigating factors. In re Fresquez, 783 P.2d 774, 780 (Ariz. 1989). Forms

of attorney discipline generally include disbarment from the practice of law, suspension from

the practice of law, public censure, informal reprimand, and probation. See, e.g., Ariz. R.

Sup. Ct. 60; ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, http://www.abanet.org/cpr/

regulation/standards_sanctions.pdf §§ 2.2-2.7 (last visited Sep. 17, 2010) (“ABA

Standards”). 

Mr. Oladiran’s ethical violations are serious. He filed a frivolous “motion for an

honest and honorable court system” that prejudiced the administration of justice and

disrupted proceedings before Judge Bolton. He filed frivolous lawsuits against four federal

judges, lawsuits that clearly were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity and had no

substantial purpose other than to embarrass and burden the named judges. Mr. Oladiran

failed to provide competent and diligent representation to a client resulting in dismissal of

the client’s case.

Although his medical conditions appear to have had a bearing on his mental state,

suggesting that his actions may not have been fully intentional, the Court concludes that his

violations were knowing. The Court bases this conclusion on the fact that Mr. Oladiran filed

the two frivolous lawsuits after he had shown “significant improvement” in his medical

condition, as described in the Court’s sealed order, and on the fact that he continues to justify

his misconduct and place blame on others. He falsely states that Judge Bolton “ordered”

depositions and then “inexplicably” granted a motion for protective order to stop the

depositions. Doc. 17 at 9-12. He describes his “motion for an honest and honorable court

system” as a the “Whistleblower Pleading,” and claims that its filing was “precipitated by

the conduct of Judge Bolton[.]” Doc. 17 at 6, 12. On an Internet posting he claimed that the

“Whistleblower Pleading” was caused in part by “the utter injustice of the Bolton ruling.”

Doc. 17-2 at 5. At the OSC hearing, Mr. Oladiran said he refused to comply with Judge

Murguia’s order requiring him to respond to a summary judgment motion because

responding would have violated the Constitution and he did not swear as an attorney “to

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 13 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

This citation is to the Court’s rough copy of the transcript provided by the reporter.

Pagination may change in the final version.

- 14 -

become a puppet to anyone.” Doc. 29, 8/12/10 Hr’g Tr. at 25.3

 Given Mr. Oladiran’s

continuing efforts to justify his misconduct and place blame on others – even after his

medical conditions have been addressed and alleviated – the Court concludes that his ethical

violations are knowing.

In addition to Mr. Oladiran’s medical conditions, mitigating factors include that he

has no prior incidents of discipline, he has been cooperative in this disciplinary proceeding,

and he ultimately stated his remorse and promised not to engage in further professional

misconduct. See In re Girardi, — F.3d —, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8932, 2010 WL 2735731

(9th Cir. July 13, 2010). An aggravating factor is that Mr. Oladiran’s actions were

undertaken in a very public manner, with his attacks on judges being visible to many who

know him to be a member of the bar. Such actions are detrimental to the rule of law and the

administration of justice.

The ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions discuss the discipline appropriate

for abuse of the legal process, which includes failure to bring a meritorious claim and to obey

court orders and rules. See ABA Standards § 6.2. The standards suggest that disbarment is

appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule with the intent to benefit

himself or another. Id. at § 6.21. Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that he is

violating a court order or rule and causes interference with a legal proceeding. Id. at § 6.22.

Lesser sanctions are appropriate when the lawyer acts negligently. Id. at §§ 6.23, 6.24.

As noted above, the Court concludes that Mr. Oladiran knowingly violated the ethical

rules of this Court. His violations caused interference with judicial proceedings and were

detrimental to the administration of justice. Although the number of his violations could lead

reasonable persons to conclude that disbarment is warranted, the mitigating factors

mentioned above persuade the Court that suspension is appropriate. Because Mr. Oladiran’s

mental state was more culpable than mere negligence, the Court concludes that a lesser

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 14 of 15
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

sanction is not warranted.

Suspension generally may extend for a period of years (see Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 60(a)(2)

(up to five years); ABA Standards § 2.3 (up to three years)), but should not be less than six

months (ABA Standards § 2.3). The Court concludes that a relatively brief suspension of six

months will be sufficient, but not longer than necessary, to accomplish the deterrent purposes

of attorney discipline. Such a sanction will reflect the seriousness of Mr. Oladiran’s conduct,

but will also recognize the mitigating factors in his favor and afford him an opportunity to

return to practice before this Court in relatively short order. Further ethical violations, of

course, will result in more severe sanctions.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that attorney Tajudeen

Oladiran has violated Ethical Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.1, 3.5(d), 4.4(a) and 8.4(d).

2. Mr. Oladiran is suspended from the practice of law before this Court for six

months. This suspension shall run from October 1, 2010, to April 1, 2011.

3. The Court anticipates that judges of this Court in any cases where Mr.

Oladiran currently is appearing will afford him and his clients reasonable time

to arrange substitute counsel.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2010.

Case 2:10-mc-00025-DGC Document 30 Filed 09/21/10 Page 15 of 15