Court Opinion

ID: 9930509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 00:05:18.261964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:03.358299
License: Public Domain

02/06/2024

 1                                                                                   Case Number: PR 24-0076
     Pamela D. Bucy
 2   Chief Disciplinary Counsel
     P.O. Box 1099
 3
     Helena, Montana 59624
 4   Tel: (406) 442-1648
     pbucv (y)montanaodc.org
 5

 6
     Office of Disciplinary Counsel

 7

 8

 9                  BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON PRACTICE OF THE

10                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
11
                                   *************

12   IN THE MATTER OF JODY W. PALMER,                   Supreme Court Cause No.
13   An Inactive Attorney,                              ODC File No. 21-198
14   Respondent.                                        COMPLAINT
15                                                      Rule 8.2, MRPC
16

17
            By leave of the Commission on Practice granted on January 11, 2024, the

18   Office of Disciplinary Counsel for the State of Montana ("ODC"), hereby charges
19
     Jody W. Palmer with professional misconduct as follows:
20
                                      General Allegations
21

22          1. Jody W. Palmer, hereinafter referred to as Respondent, was admitted to the
23
     practice of law in the State of Montana in 2021, at which time Respondent took the
24
     oath required for admission, wherein she agreed to abide by the Rules of Professional
25

     Complaint - Page 1
     Conduct, the Disciplinary Rules adopted by the Supreme Court, and the highest
 1
 2   standards of honesty, justice and morality, including but not limited to, those
 3
     outlined in parts 3 and 4 of Chapter 61, Title 37, Montana Code Annotated.
 4
            2. The Montana Supreme Court has approved and adopted the Montana Rules
 5

 6
     of Professional Conduct ("MRPC"), governing the ethical conduct of attorneys

 7   licensed to practice in the State of Montana, which Rules were in effect at all times
 8
     mentioned in this Complaint.
 9
            3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Respondent was a sole practitioner
10

11   with a limited law practice. The event giving rise to rnuch of the conduct at issue

12   resulted from Respondent's having served as pro bono counsel for the mother in a
13
     highly contentious parenting plan matter before the Eighteenth Judicial District
14
     Court, Gallatin County, case was captioned, In RE the Marriage of Samuel Pruitt
15

16   Bernhard and Dwy Neffar Bernhard, Cause No. DR-18-234C.

17          4. Respondent represented the mother until Standing Master Magdalena
18
     Bowen entered an Order disqualifying Respondent on August 20, 2021; Respondent
19
     did not appeal the Order.
20

21                                      COUNT ONE
22
            5. ODC realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 4 of the General
23
     Allegations as if fully restated in this Count One.
24

25
     /I

     Complaint - Page 2
             6. An election was held for Bozeman's Municipal Court Judge on November
 1

 2   2, 2021. Prior to the election, Respondent provided an interview on or about October
 3
     22, 2021, to Conservative News from Montana. The interview's premise was to
 4
     "expose tyranny in Gallatin Family Court" and further, the "truth" about experiences
 5

 6
     in those courts, but focused specifically on Respondent's allegations toward

 7   Standing Master Bowen.
 8
             7. Respondent referenced her experience with Standing Master Bowen, and
 9
     specifically, her disqualification in the Bernhard matter, as an example of Bowen's
10

11   "usurpation of power" and inability to competently perform her job. Specific to

12   Bernard, Respondent stated Standing Master Bowen used facts not in the record,
13
     removed her client's ability to have an attorney and did not provide her an
14
     opportunity to appeal the order, "used facts out of thin air", utilized non-existent
15

16   rules and/or, were a "fabrication of [Standing Master Bowen' s] imagination."

17           8. Respondent then subsequently wrote a Letter to the Editor in the Bozeman
18
     Daily Chronicle titled "Bowen Shouldn't Be on the Bench, Retain Harrington",
19
     reiterating these same allegations and more.
20

21           9. The article was published on or around October 26, 2021, and stated in
22
     part:
23
                           "Bowen is incompetently performing her current
24                  role as family court standing master. She is many months
25
                    behind in her cases, allowing children to languish in
                    abusive homes sustaining long term psychological

     Complaint - Page 3
                    damage. Bowen fails to learn the facts of her cases or
 1
                    engage in rigorous legal analysis expected of a judge,
 2                  instead taking shortcuts by using imaginary facts and
                    declining to review relevant law, resulting in ineffective
 3
                    decisions that increase litigation for the parties. If Bowen
 4                  cannot manage her current courtroom, how will she
                    manage as municipal judge? . . .
 5

 6
                             . . . By many accounts, Bowen is known to favor
                    parties whose attorney she "likes," which is lazy decision
 7                  making and antithetical to impartial justice. . . Bowen has
                    permitted racist dog whistles to be bandied about in her
 8
                    cases and reportedly neglected to provide, requested
 9                  disability accommodations to disabled parties. Dozens of
                    attorneys and litigants who have suffered these deleterious
10
                    actions fear speaking out because they don't trust Bowen
11                  to restrain herself from vindictively harming their careers
                    or taking their children. Bowen should not be on the
12                  bench."
13
              10. Respondent's statements in the October 22, 2021, interview and October
14
     26, 2021, letter to the editor, contained statements about the contents of the
15

16   disqualification order and Standing Master Bowen, that can be proven demonstrably

17
     false.
18
              11. Once a lawyer is admitted to the bar, although they do not surrender their
19
     freedom of expression, they must temper their criticisms in accordance with
20

21   professional standards of conduct. Gentile v. State Bar ofNev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1066
22
     (1991) (Quoting In Re Rouss, 116 N.E. 782, 783 (1917)). Statements impugning the
23
     integrity of a judge rnay not be punished unless they are capable of being proved
24

25
     true or false. Standing Comm. On Discipline of the United States Dist. Court v.

     Complaint - Page 4
     Yagman, 55 F.3d at 1438. Because false statements impugning the integrity of a
 1
 2   judge erode public confidence, they are subject to discipline. Yagman, 55 F.3d at
 3
     1439.
 4
             12. Respondent's conduct and statements as outlined above constitute a
 5

 6
     violation of Rule 8.2, MRPC, which prohibits an attorney from making statements

 7   about the qualifications or integrity of a judge which the lawyer knows to be false or
 8
     are made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity.
 9
             WHEREFORE, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel prays:
10

11           1. That a Citation be issued to the Respondent, to which shall be attached a

12   copy of the complaint, requiring Respondent, within twenty-one (21) days after
13
     service thereof, to file a written answer to the complaint;
14
             2. That a formal hearing be had on the allegations of this complaint before an
15

16   Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission;

17           3. That the Adjudicatory Panel of the Commission make a report of its
18
     findings and recommendations after a formal hearing to the Montana Supreme
19
     Court, and, in the event the Adjudicatory Panel finds the facts warrant disciplinary
20

21   action and recommends discipline, that the Commission also recommend the nature
22
     and extent of appropriate disciplinary action, including an award of costs and
23
     expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter; and,
24

25
     //

     Complaint - Page 5
            4. For such other and further relief as deemed necessary and proper.
 1
                               9-k.
 2
            DATED this          day of February 2024.
 3

 4
                                           OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL
 5

 6
                                           B
 7                                                Pamela D. Bucy
                                                  Chief Disciplinary Counsel
 8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

     Complaint - Page 6
                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Pamela D. Bucy, hereby certify that I have served true and accurate copies of the foregoing
Complaint - Formal Complaint and Citation to Appear to the following on 02-06-2024:

Shelly Smith (Court Reporter)
Office Administrator
Supreme Court Boards and Commissions
P.O. Box 203002
301 S. Park Ave., Ste. 328
Helena MT 59624
Service Method: eService
E-mail Address: shellysmith@mt.gov

                                Electronically signed by Shelby Streib on behalf of Pamela D. Bucy
                                                                                 Dated: 02-06-2024