Court Opinion

ID: 9773274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:41:02.034691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:51.397917
License: Public Domain

ROBERT E. SEILER, Senior Judge,
concurring.
In my opinion, there is no question but that Mr. Westfall in his television interview maliciously or recklessly made a false statement that Judge Karohl wrote his Bulloch opinion to satisfy his own personal views, using less than honest reasons to do so (which opinion, incidentally, in its result necessarily exposed Mr. Westfall’s ignorance of the law of double jeopardy, no doubt thereby arousing his pique).
Mr. Westfall’s self-serving protestations that he had “respect for Judge Karohl”, did not question his personal integrity “in the least” and had never intended to “impugn or question Judge Karohl’s personal integrity”, made months later, only after disciplinary charges had been filed against him, in no way change the spirit behind what he said about Judge Karohl in the television interview.
Clearly, under any test, Mr. Westfall’s conduct is a violation of Rule 8.2(a) for which he deserves discipline. None of the many cases cited in the opinions herein would require otherwise.
My belief is that it is not necessary or desirable to reach any conclusion in this case as to whether the same degree of constitutional protection afforded speech in civil and criminal cases is required in lawyer disciplinary cases.
I concur in the judgment of discipline by reprimand.