As we all know, the practice of the profession is heavily regulated and part of that regulation includes limits on our freedom of speech. However, that does not mean that attorneys do not have the right to express their opinions, including their opinions about other lawyers.
As reported in a number of blogs, a law professor from the University of Denver has filed a complaint with the Illinois disciplinary authorities based on the fact that a certain Illinois lawyer has been engaging in what she considers cyber-harassment (or cyber-bullying) by leaving insulting, racist and sexist comments on her blog and other blogs.
I have not seen all the actual comments the professor is complaining about and maybe if I did I would change my mind, but from what I have read about the allegations, I am skeptical that allegations of improper speech should be sufficient to support a disciplinary complaint and, if they are, I am troubled by the implications of such a complaint on the principles of freedom of speech.
There is no question that some of the comments cited in the various blog posts about this story are inappropriate, and many are quite offensive, but others are just exaggerated expressions of opinion meant to make fun of the work of law school professors. (Some of the comments could very well have been about me and my work.) Yet, I don't think that the comments, or more accurately, the conduct of posting the comments, should be the basis for disciplinary sanctions.
(If you want to pause now and look at the blog posts in which the professor explains her views and some of the comments to which she is responding, go here, here, here, here and here. Otherwise, finish my post and come back to them later.)
As law professors, scholars and bloggers we put ourselves and our ideas out there for open criticism. The fact that some of that criticism is done behind the protection of anonymity, the fact that some of the criticism is offensive, and the fact that sometimes we have no recourse to respond to the criticism should not allow us to ask the state to impose sanctions upon those who have exercised their right to criticize.
The rules of conduct in most states do recognize a duty not to engage in speech that is prejudicial to the administration of justice (a standard that is too vague also), but that standard is not at issue in this case.
The professor's effort to punish the attorney who criticized her threatens free speech and may result in a chilling effect on those who wish to engage in discussions whether in writing, in the classroom, on the internet or anywhere else. The most basic principle underlying the notion of freedom of speech is that the state cannot punish someone for protected speech merely because someone might find the speech offensive. That could be the result of the complaint at issue here, and that is why I think the request for sanctions is troubling. If the state agrees with her, the precedent will diminish the freedom we now have as academics to engage our students in the discussion of controversial and important issues because of the fear that someone might be offended.
The controversy reminds me of Richard Delgado's work on hate speech and the possibility of recognizing a cause of action for damages inflicted by words - other than defamation. It was an interesting proposal but it was very difficult to reconcile it with the principles of freedom of speech. Similarly, in his works on hate speech he has argued for what some call a "responsible regulation" of speech. Again, I understand the concern and I am sympathetic to the idea, but the problem is how to define what is responsible regulation. And who will define that? By definition, someone will have to decide what is acceptable speech and what isn't, and if that someone is the state... well, that is what the first amendment is there to prevent.
Neither the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct nor the ABA Model Rules have a specific section on offensive speech, but both have clarified in the comment to rule 8.4 that manifesting bias by words may be considered misconduct if it is prejudicial to the administration of justice. However, this is limited to circumstances where an attorney is "in the course of representing a client," as opposed to where the attorney is expressing his or her own biased opinions or world views.
Interestingly, the issue of whether an attorney can be disciplined for offensive speech is not new to Illinois, although in a different context. If the case moves forward and if it reaches the state Supreme Court, it may give the Court the chance to address the question it did not address in 1999 when it decided not to review the denial of admission to practice to a white supremacist. In that case, the Committee on Character and Fitness denied admission and the applicant appealed arguing that "the Committee’s use of his expressed views to justify the denial of his admission to the bar violates his constitutional rights to free speech." The Supreme Court denied review thus avoiding the issue and not setting any precedent. In a short but interesting dissenting opinion, however, one of the justices argued that the appeal raised a significant constitutional question that deserved explicit, reasoned resolution by the court. Unfortunately, the Court did not go for it.
Although the context is different, I think the issue is similar. One of the issues discussed by the dissenting opinion in that case is the question of whether an applicant can be denied admission to practice for expressing views that would not subject a practicing lawyer to discipline. The judge, thus, seems to imply that there is a strong argument that expressing racist views would not subject an attorney to discipline.
For more commentary on the freedom of speech implications of this case, you can check out:
Prof. Jonathan Turley's Res Ipsa Loquitur blog ("That does not sound like the basis of an ethics complaint.")
My Shingle (the "decision to file an ethics complaint against the commenter sets unspeakably bad precedent for bloggers exercising their First Amendment rights.")
Above the Law (I don’t see how it’s workable to sanction lawyers who say disgusting things online. Lawyers say racist, sexist things all time.)
Disbarring the Critics ("...disdain for the First Amendment by attempting to silence a critic, albeit an anonymous one, by using very general rules in the Rules of Professional Conduct...")
Having said all that, however, it is possible there is more to the story. My comments (and those of the other blogs I linked to) are based on the assumption that the disciplinary complaint is based merely on commentary (speech), not on conduct. The distinction is, of course, significant. If the allegations are about conduct, particularly conduct that can be classified as criminal, then the issue is different and there would be a lot more support for the argument in favor of discipline.
UPDATE (July 21, 2014): The ProfsBlawg and Legal Ethics Forum are now reporting (here and here) that the state disciplinary authorities have decided not to pursue an action against the blogger. Even though I found many of the comments by the blogger to be offensive, I think the decision is correct (for the reasons I explained in my original post) as long as the basis of the complaint was merely speech that expressed opinions. If the complaint was based on conduct, or on speech that could be construed as actual threats, the story would be different. However, it seems like the issue is now closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment