Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
- The idea of suing a bar association may very well betray lack of strategic thinking and of knowledge of relevant facts.(* >Lsch:14§3; ol:52§C; ol:8§E; jur:xliv¶C). This is particularly the case when the bar association is charged with exerting a corruptive influence over the courts that leads judges to engage in wrongdoing detrimental to parties before them so that such parties, especially the pro ses among them, become victims of wrongdoing judges.
- A similar analysis was made in a previous article(ol:284) that dealt with the idea that wrongdoing judges can be exposed by filing a suit in the International Criminal Court, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law (RICO), through a class action, by creating an organization or marching before a courthouse to denounce those judges, or by pursuing a personal local case where the trial judge is charged with wrongdoing.
- The analysis of those ideas and of that of suing a bar association applies the same key analytical tool, namely, dynamic analysis of harmonious and conflicting interests(Lsch:14§2; ol:52§C; dcc:8¶11; dcc:17¶1). This analysis looks for those who share an interest with others in doing the act in question, and those who have an interest in preventing others from doing it; and whether the former, with harmonious interests, or the latter, with conflicting interests, are likely to be stronger and prevail.
All (blue text references) are keyed to the study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts, by Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., titled:
Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting(* >jur:1)
If these links do not download the file in Internet Explorer, download either of the following browsers, install it, copy the first link above into the browser search box, and hit ‘Enter’. If the file, which has over 750 pages and is close to 50MB, does not download, try using the other links:
- Judges and their relation to bar associations
- Judges were regular attorneys before becoming judges. They are likely to have been and still be members of bar associations. They may even have been officers of such associations.
- Aside from other judges, most of their friends and colleagues are lawyers, who are members of bar associations.
- Lawyers represent by far the largest number of contributors to the campaigns, and voters in the elections, of lawyers who run in state judicial elections and judges who run for reelection.
- Lawyers and their bar associations are the principal evaluators of the competency of judges. Their evaluations are a key factor considered by politicians in nominating a judge for, or appointing him or her to, another term or a higher court.
- In fact, the endorsement of a bar association is an important source of support for a lawyer who wants to run in a judicial race and for a judge who is pulling strings to be elevated to a higher court.
- If after the expiration of his term or the loss of a judicial race a state judge wants to be hired by a law firm, the bigger and more prestigious the better, the judge needs to be in good stead with the legal community.
- It follows from these circumstances that a state judge, who unlike his federal counterparts does not have life-tenure, has an interest in having lawyers on his side rather than holding a grudge against him and aiming at his back.
- 1. Pressure on the judge presiding over a suit against a bar association
- After a suit is filed against a bar association, the presiding judge is likely to be presented with his IOUs held by the defendant association and lawyers with a close relation to it as well as all other bar associations. None of the latter will want to sit back and see an unfavorable precedent be established that can open the door to subsequent suits against any and all of them.
- The judge will preside over the suit in such a way as to preserve his access to big and prestigious law firms after his judgeship is over, and to collect some IOUs from them that he may cash in when looking for a job again.
- Why would a rational judge, thinking like a homo economicus rather than a man of integrity, risk his relation with the bar and his future prospect of landing a posh job for the sake of a one-off case among the thousands that he will deal with during his judgeship?
- The above considerations are not enough to support a motion to recuse the presiding judge. They are equally applicable to all the other judges of his court, so they cannot be used to disqualify the court as a whole.
- How much integrity must a prospective plaintiff ascertain in each of the judges of the competent court to be confident that whomever of them happens to be assigned to the suit against a bar association will preside over the trial fairly and impartially?
- A suit against a bar association raises the suspicion that the judge will have a bias in favor of the defendant. Moreover, the association comes into court with its own specter: Bringing a suit against a bar association is a daunting undertaking because the association will have access to staff its defense team with the best and the brightest lawyers in town
- Under those circumstances, who wants to spend the enormous amount of effort, money, and time required to sue a bar association? Hardly a prudent and successful lawyer will want to take on such a formidable defendant, let alone do so on a contingency basis.
- Bringing a suit against a state bar association in a federal district court, where judges have a life-appointment, lessens the problem of judicial bias toward the defendant. However, it presents other substantial problems:
- On what grounds will plaintiff argue that the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit?
- Trying to sue a national bar association only aggravates such problems: On what grounds will plaintiff assert personal jurisdiction over it to force it to come to the state court to defend itself or be subject to a default judgement enforceable across state lines under the full faith and credit clause?
- Pro ses suing a bar association complete the trifecta of an exercise in futility
- If the idea of suing a bar association popped up in the mind of a pro se and pro ses are the ones who will prosecute the case, then it figures: It is not that they are not thinking strategically; it is that they are either not thinking through their idea or not thinking at all. They simply had a knee jerk idea.
- Just because pro ses can file a case in court does not mean that their naiveté, resentment and foolhardiness turn them into the equivalent of a knowledgeable, dispassionate, and prudent team of plaintiff lawyers. Much less do they become automatically the match for the team of top lawyers defending the bar association.
- And then the pro ses must face the judge. The attitude of federal judges toward pro ses may very well represent that of state judges: In the Federal Judiciary, a case filed by a pro se is expressly(jur:43¶81) weighed for statistical purposes as a third of a case, whereas a capital punishment case is weighed like ten cases, that is, a 30 times weightier case. That means that a pro se case, regardless of its nature, is considered to deserve only one third of the attention and resources accorded to a run of the mill case represented by a lawyer, which is weighed as one case regardless of the merits of the represented case or the experience and competency of the lawyer.
- As a result, when a federal judge sees a brief or a motion written by a pro se, she gives it the perfunctory attention that the official weighing of the case makes her feel justified in give it. The weighing works as a self-fulfilling expectation: Because as the case came in for filing it was considered worth not even half of a case, the judge will do, not justice to it, but rather a quick job of disposing of it as worthless.
- A pro se may decide not to file a suit against a bar association in a state court to avoid a judge biased by her interest in protecting the defendant and thereby herself. So the pro se files the suit in federal court where he finds a judge biased against him because the judge has no interest in dealing with the substandard briefs and motions that her Judiciary expects a pro se to write and argue. The pro se can pick state cyanide or federal arsenic.
- A pro se plaintiff, as a self-improvised attorney that remains ignorant of the law and how to plead it, going against both a formidable foe, such as a bar of attorneys is, and a judge biased toward it and against him, that makes a suit against a bar association the trifecta for an exercise in futility.
- Understanding the difficulties of suing a bar association with a realistic chance of success is like understanding anything else: The devil is in the detail. On the futility of suing judges, see ol:158.
- A reasonably calculated alternative: auditing wrongdoing judges and malpracticing attorneys in search of patterns of wrongdoing or malpractice evidence
- The article below( and at * >ol:274) offers a reasonable and more affordable alternative to suing a bar association. It can be applied to audit both judges and lawyers.
- If a lawyer has dealt with a client irresponsibly and/or incompetently, it is possible that she has dealt likewise with other clients. To find those other clients, one can search her name in the databases of Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis as well as of the courts in which she may have practiced, beginning with those near where she lives. This should return all the cases in which she has appeared as the attorney of record.
- Thereafter one can find the contact information of the clients as set forth in the article below. One can ask them whether they are satisfied with her representation of their legal interests. With all those who are not, one can join forces to search for commonalities that reveal patterns of the attorney’s malpractice or even wrongdoing.
- That search will not be conducted with a class action in view because it is unlikely that there will be so many clients, not to mention dissatisfied ones, of the malpracticing attorney as to warrant a class action.
- Rather, it can conceivably lead to a joinder of similarly situated parties who share the cost of suing the malpracticing attorney common to all of them and strengthen their case with strong evidence of patterns of malpractice or wrongdoing.
- Auditing a lawyer is a more promising alternative than either one single client venturing alone into court with only her allegations against her former attorney or several pro ses cobbling together a case against a bar association in an effort to expose how they have allegedly corrupted courts and enabled unaccountable judges to engage in wrongdoing with no risk of liability to their victims.
- On exposing wrongdoing judges through auditing, see below. On thinking strategically to:
- audit judges in support of a test case grounded on due process and equal protection of the law to be appealed to the highest state court to hold judges accountable and liable to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing, see ol:296; and
- turn into a business for lawyers and journalists the exposure of wrongdoing judges, see ol:271.
Dare trigger history(* >jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.
Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
NOTE 1: Given the interference with Dr. Cordero’s email and e-cloud storage accounts described at * >ggl:1 et seq., when emailing him, copy the above bloc of his email accounts and paste it in the To: line of your email so as to enhance the chances of your email reaching him at least at one of those addresses.
NOTE 2: Watch the interview with Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq., by Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd, on the issue of exposing judges’ wrongdoing and bringing about judicial reform, at:
NOTE 3: All my replies are shared with the group that I am trying to form to expose wrongdoing judges and advocate judicial reform, and the national public that I am trying to inform thereof.
If you wish to engage in private communications with me, you must first retain my consulting services; otherwise, your communications are part of your contribution to advancing our common cause of judicial wrongdoing exposure and reform.
NOTE 4: For consulting services, I charge $350 per hour plus expenses and incidentals to be deducted from a retainer of $7,500-$10,000 paid in advance.
The fee for an appearance as an expert witness in a court in New York City is $1,500 per half a day in addition to preparation and any written statement for it, transportation, and any other expenses and incidentals. The fee for appearing in a court outside New York City is determined by the amount of time that it will require plus transportation, hotel, meals, and communication expenses and incidentals.
You can determine the quality of my legal research and writing by examining the articles that I post and my study of the Federal Judiciary and its judges, the models for their state counterparts(* >jur:1):
To evaluate my oral advocacy skills, please watch the interview referred to in NOTE 2 above.
If you are seeking pro bono legal assistance, kindly see my suggestions for finding it(* >ol:131). I cannot afford to work for free for all the people across the U.S. who request my assistance.
I trust that I am helping all victims of wrongdoing judges and advocates of honest judiciaries with my analysis, strategy, and proposals for action in my articles. But attaining our objectives requires that we all join forces to implement those proposals. Will you join in your own as well as the national public interest? If so, please let me know.