Opinion ID: 1925132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Judicial Bias Allegation

Text: The Respondent's briefs also suggested that the Superior Court might rule on a basis other than the merits of the case. We hold that those unfounded accusations impugning the integrity of the tribunal violated Rule 3.5(d). In Peters v. Pine Meadow Ranch Home Ass'n [10] Court of Utah struck the attorney's briefs from the record and awarded fees to opposing counsel because the briefs were replete with attacks on the integrity of the court of appeals panel that decided the cases below [and were] unfounded, scandalous, irrelevant to the questions upon which we have granted certiorari, and disrespectful of the judiciary. [11] In In re Simon, [12] the Louisiana Supreme Court sanctioned a lawyer with a six month suspension for the following language: Judge Simon (Judge Ad Hoc ) has committed reversible error in the performance of her duties as Judge Ad Hoc. Specifically, Judge Simon utilized the wrong standard (subjective) in deciding this issue. In denying plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify/Recuse Defense Counsel, Judge Simon has violated not only controlling legal authority but the very principals [sic] (honesty and fundamental fairness) upon which our judicial system is based. Judge Simon's denial undermines the efficacy of our jurisprudence, attorney ethics and judicial canons and serves no other purpose but to promote public disrepute and distrust of our legal system. Indeed, Judge Simon's denial of plaintiff's motion is baseless and legally, logically and ethically unsound. [13] In In re Wilkins, [14] the Indiana Supreme Court found the following statement, contained in a brief to the court clearly impugned the integrity of a judge in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct and were worthy of sanction. The lawyer wrote that, [t]he [Court of Appeals] Opinion is so factually and legally inaccurate that one is left to wonder whether the Court of Appeals was determined to find for Appellee Sports, Inc., and then said whatever was necessary to reach that conclusion (regardless of whether the facts or the law supported its decision). [15] In that case, the Indiana Supreme Court decided that public reprimand was considered the appropriate sanction in light of several mitigating factors, including the immediate contact and written apology of the attorney, an outstanding and exemplary record, and the fact that the offending language was actually written by out of state co-counsel.