Opinion ID: 2263762
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: ABA Standard 3.0 ConsiderationsDuty, Mental State, and Injury

Text: We begin with the proposition that members of the legal profession must adhere to the highest ethical standards regardless of the lawyers perceived motive for deviating from these standards. [26] The Hearing Board finds that Respondent violated his duty to the legal system. [27] Respondent specifically violated his duty to the legal system by disrupting the Court and thereby interfering with the legal process. Lawyers are officers of the court with the duty to abide by legal rules of substance and procedure affecting the administration of justice. Respondent failed to comply with this duty. The Hearing Board next finds Respondent knowingly and intentionally engaged in the established misconduct. [28] He was aware of the nature or attendant circumstances of his conduct, despite his claims that he was simply acting zealously on behalf of his client and he did not intend to disrupt the tribunal. We reject this argument because our review of the record is to the contrary and Respondent has no credibility on this point. The facts amply demonstrate Respondent's repeated refusal to abide by Judge Blackburn's rulings and we find this conduct demonstrates his knowing and intentional conduct. Finally, the Hearing Board finds Respondent caused injury and potential injury to the legal system, and the profession. Respondent's intentional disregard and disdain for the Court's authority is inimical to our system of justice. The fact that one of the jurors the People interviewed wondered whether the City had gotten to the judge is evidence of injury he has caused.