Opinion ID: 1918826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Nature of the conduct involved.

Text: ¶ 35. A review of the transcript leaves no reasonable doubt that Lumumba chose truculent language for the purpose of inciting anger. Such tactics are perhaps arguably understandable at times in the cross examination of a witness, but are never appropriate when addressing a court. Lumumba's duty was to his client, not to his own need to test the trial judge in a verbal battle over whether or not the trial court had been fair, and whether the trial court needed instruction in how best to get along with other lawyers among other inappropriate comments. Under the guise of protecting the record, Lumumba abandoned his client to pursue his own interests. To compound his inappropriate motive, he chose language clearly outside the bounds of reasonable, respectful advocacy, regardless of his purpose. Furthermore, his barbarian comment to the Clarion-Ledger attacked the integrity of the Judge and the judiciary as a whole.