Opinion ID: 659388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 The genesis of this unfortunate incident is Sandlin's unsuccessful attempt to have United States District Judge Alan A. McDonald recused in a civil case in which Sandlin served as defense counsel. During a hearing on a temporary restraining order, Richard Allen Smith (Smith), Chief Executive Officer of a plaintiff corporation, was called as a witness. As Smith approached the witness stand, he and Judge McDonald exchanged a greeting which according to Sandlin appeared to be that of friends. Based on his observations, Sandlin began questioning Smith about his relationship with Judge McDonald. Judge McDonald stopped Sandlin's inquiry, commenting that Sandlin was not conducting discovery in this Court as a basis for a motion for recusal. Sandlin then asked Judge McDonald to divulge any personal relationship he had with Smith. Judge McDonald responded: 3 The Court does not feel the least bit uncomfortable on sitting on this matter. The Court has known Mr. Smith and his brother. The Court has had the distinct honor of knowing their father before them and would expect them to expect that this Court would rule impartially without any concern about that fact at all. Now, get on to the issues of the case. 4 (Emphasis added.) 5 Sandlin filed a recusal motion. His motion was based, in part, on the affidavit of his client, John E. Strait (Strait), who averred that, during the TRO hearing, Judge McDonald gave his opinion that he believed Richard A. Smith would be honest and tell the truth, or words to that effect. Sandlin's motion was also based upon the fact that, prior to becoming a United States District Judge, Judge McDonald had represented Smith's brother in a wrongful death action following the death of his son. Because the parties disputed what was said during the hearing, United States District Judge Justin L. Quackenbush, who presided over the recusal motion, ordered a transcript. In it, Judge McDonald is reported as saying: 6 The Court does not feel the least bit uncomfortable on sitting on this matter. The Court has known Mr. Smith and his brother. The Court has had the distinct honor of knowing their father before them and would expect them to know that this Court would rule impartially without any concern about that fact at all. Now, get on to the issues of the case. 7 (Emphasis added.) Judge Quackenbush denied Sandlin's recusal motion, finding that the record does not support the claim that Judge McDonald indicated at the TRO hearing that he was predisposed to believe that Mr. Smith will tell the truth. 8 Sandlin moved for reconsideration. Prior to the hearing on his motion, Sandlin listened to the tape recording of the TRO hearing. Kaye Blankenship (Blankenship), Judge McDonald's court reporter, was present when Sandlin listened to the tape recording. She told Sandlin that she made certain editorial changes in the transcript at Judge McDonald's direction. In moving for reconsideration, Sandlin asserted that both the tape recording of the TRO hearing and the transcript of that hearing were materially inaccurate in that where Judge McDonald said he knew that Mr. Smith would tell the truth or that he wouldn't lie, and my immediate response where I said, 'Well, I believe Mr. Smith would tell the truth, at least I hope so,' are missing. 9 Because Blankenship was reported to have stated that she made changes in the transcript, Judge Quackenbush allowed Sandlin to depose her. During her deposition, Blankenship testified that her practice was to submit transcripts to Judge McDonald prior to filing them. Blankenship also said that, on Judge McDonald's order, she changed would expect them to expect  to would expect them to know in the TRO hearing transcript. She said she did not delete any language from the transcript as alleged by Sandlin. 10 Before Blankenship's deposition, Sandlin had telephoned FBI Agent John Detlor (Detlor). The district court found that Sandlin told Detlor that the transcript of the TRO hearing was inaccurate, and that Judge McDonald ordered Blankenship to alter the transcript by purging it of the Judge's statement regarding the veracity of the adverse witness. Detlor reported Sandlin's allegations to his supervisor, Jason Moulton (Moulton). Moulton telephoned Sandlin, who repeated his allegations. 11 Sandlin also telephoned William Beatty, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) for the Eastern District of Washington. The district court found Sandlin told Beatty he wished to report a tampering with the evidence by Judge McDonald. He then repeated his allegations regarding alteration of the TRO hearing transcript, adding that Judge McDonald's conduct was criminal and should be prosecuted. Sandlin stated he had retained two tape recording experts, who would find that the tape recording of the TRO hearing had also been altered. 12 Judge Quackenbush had allowed Sandlin to listen to the tape recording of the TRO hearing with his experts, both employees of the local television station. The affidavits of both men essentially agreed that, although there was a distinct possibility of an audio edit, there was not the certainty of one. Both suggested additional testing. Despite this suggestion, Sandlin telephoned John Lamp, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington. The district court found Sandlin repeated to Lamp his allegations regarding Judge McDonald's material alteration of the TRO hearing transcript. Sandlin also informed Lamp that his experts had confirmed that the tape recording of the hearing had been altered and that he was certain Judge McDonald had ordered the alterations. 13 As a result of Sandlin's allegations made to United States Attorney Lamp, a Grand Jury subpoena was issued for Blankenship's stenotype notes and the tape recording of the hearing. An independent examination of both revealed no alteration. The FBI informed Sandlin that, having found no basis for Sandlin's allegations that the tape recording and stenotype notes had been altered, its investigation was closed. 14 Judge McDonald thereafter filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action accusing Sandlin of violating Rule 1.2(f)(2) of the Local Rules (L.R.) of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington and Rule 8.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Washington State Bar Association (WSRPC). L.R. 1.2(f)(2) requires that attorneys appearing before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington observe the WSRPC. WSRPC 8.2(a) states: 15 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, integrity, or record of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. 16 A hearing was held on Judge McDonald's disciplinary petition. The district court found that Sandlin had no reasonable basis in fact for making his statements to FBI Agents Detlor and Moulton and AUSA Beatty regarding Judge McDonald's intentional alteration of the transcript and tape recording. The district court further concluded that Sandlin's statements to United States Attorney Lamp were made without any basis in fact and with reckless disregard as to their truth. Finally, the court found that Sandlin's statements to United States Attorney Lamp that his two experts had confirmed the alteration of the tape recording were knowingly false. These facts, the district court concluded, were established by a clear preponderance of the evidence and ordered that Sandlin be suspended from practice for six months. 17 In his appeal, Sandlin contends he did not violate WSRPC 8.2(a) or, if a violation occurred, no sanction is allowed because his speech is protected by the First Amendment.