April 1, 2018 Letters
Letters
Disruptive Lawyers
In the March 1 News, a small article appeared concerning a new proposed rule to “assist disruptive lawyers.” The language of this rule was lifted almost verbatim in its concept from the old Stalin-era Communist Criminal Code, making anti-Soviet agitation a crime.
Anyone who expressed a view different from the party line must have been suffering from “philosophical intoxication,” was “diagnosed” as such by a psychologist, and deemed unfit to remain in society. If they weren’t lined up against their basement wall and shot after this abusive psychiatric diagnosis, they were sent to the Arctic Gulag to suffer for the rest of their lives.
All lawyers should wake up and rail against this left fascist proposed rule. You can now be deemed unfit to practice law when some psychologist determines that you engage in “consistent inappropriate, impulsive, or angry outbursts within the legal process;” or “chronic argumentativeness,” among other vague excuses to invoke the rule. Anything that you say or think that is not politically correct can put you on the choo-choo train to the Gulag. If you say that you don’t believe in affirmative action, global warming, abortion, or say that you believe women and LBGTQ are equal but not special, or that forced diversity leads to institutional incompetence, or if you use the word “retarded” you can be deemed “inappropriate,” “angry,” “delusional,” or “inappropriately accusatory.” Then you disappear.
The rule is also wholly unnecessary. If judges would take control of their courtrooms, as they used to, and sanction any unethical behavior, that would end the matter. Now, however, anyone can simply complain to this new Star Chamber if their safe zones are offended in any way, and any lawyer who has an opinion different than the party line of the politically correct can be deemed mentally unfit to continue to practice law. Democracy and free speech? Forget about it.
Unless you have a whole wardrobe of warm winter clothes, love isolation and loneliness, and don’t care about losing your law license after seven years of higher education merely because your opinions don’t conform to the party line, you must fight against this proposed rule with every fiber of your being, or you simply won’t be there anymore.
Michael Lechtman
North Miami Beach
_____________________
The proposed rule to divert disruptive lawyers from the disciplinary process into treatment for their personality issues is a good idea as long as there is a clear provision to return them to disciplinary action should they not progress adequately in diversion.
Steven Wallace
Glendale, UT
Scams
I’m not surprised to see, time-and-time again, these scams targeting lawyers.
More will happen unless the Bar decides to do something about it. I’ve being raising this issue to any Bar executive that I encounter, current and past presidents. There is no reason for the Bar to publish our unique Bar numbers for the public (and scammers) to see easily on the Bar’s website.
The Bar is contributing to this plague by publishing this important number online. Once a scammer has this number, we are done, they can go about and do as they please and scam other lawyers, the courts, and the public at large.
It’s time to do something about it.
Augusto Perera
Miami
CRC
The Constitution Revision Commission is going in the wrong direction if Proposal 41 is passed. Judges are on the bench too long as it is. The retirement age should be 65.
Experience does not make a good judge. Hard work and honest impartiality are the hallmarks of a good jurist. We have over 100,000 attorneys in Florida. More than enough to fill any judicial vacancies. A judicial appointment should be a public service not a life-time appointment.
Proposal 62 is another constitutional idea going in the wrong direction. It is a political statement and belongs in the Legislature. Voters who choose not to join a party have chosen not to participate in party politics. They are “No Party Affiliation” because that is their choice. If Mr. Schifino wants more voter participation, then he better educate the electorate with mandatory civic classes in the schools beginning in the ninth grade and all the way through the 12th grade.
The Florida Constitution is far too long. Are there any proposals to eliminate the numerous amendments that passed into the Constitution with the support of single-issue groups? This would be a better use of the CRC’s time.
Patrick R. Sweeney
Spring Hill
(Editor’s Note: P-41 amends Art. V and Art. XII to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges and justices from 70 to 75. Unlike the current system, judges and justices would have to step down when they turn 75 and not be allowed to complete the second half of their terms. P-41 is headed to the full CRC. P-62 initially would have allowed independent voters to pick a partisan ballot to use in primary elections. When that ran into headwinds in the Ethics and Elections Committee, Schifino modified the amendment to a top-two system that is used in some form in five states, including California and Washington. It was defeated in committee and is not headed to the full CRC, although CRC rules allow for proposals defeated in committee to be “clawed back” by a majority vote of the full CRC.)
FLA
Last fall I was knee deep in all sorts of problems caused by living too long and was unaware that Florida Lawyers Assistance Executive Director Michael Cohen had answered his last late-night phone call of desperation.
I am certain he prepared his staff to take over as he was always ahead of the game. The women in the March 15 Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc., article seem up to the task of following a legend.
I ran into Cohen just once; however, the 30 minutes we spent at a Bar luncheon burned into my cortex inches deep. I know at least 15 lawyers whom he brought back from prison, disgrace, or suicide.
In a profession marked with hordes of judging jackals, he never judged anybody who called him and begged for help. Cohen was most proud of the fact the he alone in the entire state could not file a Bar grievance against anyone. Newton said he stood upon the shoulders of giants. We all stand on Cohen’s shoulders.
Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee
Free Speech
I read with great interest the submitted letter under the heading ‘Free Speech’ in the March 1 News. The writer begins by conceding that “Yes, anyone, including lawyers, should be allowed to express their opinion about same-sex marriage, no matter how misguided.”
“Should be allowed.” What a “blessing” from that writer — and anyone else of the mind that the Bill of Rights flows with discretion from some of us to the others. (Pardon the lighthearted sarcasm — not as yet forbidden.)
But seriously, it points up the burgeoning problem in modern-day free speech discussions: There are some within America’s legal profession who are progressively broaching notions that certain categories of viewpoint and other content “should be disallowed” in the everyday context of civilly presented opposing views and the freedom of expression.
The ABA and manipulation of conduct rules notwithstanding, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t “shift” to accommodate pop culture, identity politics, or any advocate’s selfish assertion regarding which views “should (or shouldn’t) be allowed.” If you are moved to advocate, do so with civility. Then, respectfully listen while the opposing advocate has her turn, and let the chips fall where they may. Isn’t that ‘lawyering’ at its most fundamental?
In the absence of blatant vulgarity, clear malice, or legal precedent, broad declarations that persons’ relevant and material viewpoints should be “disallowed” is little more than partisan heckling and/or censorship.
Alan J. Denis
Tallahassee
___________________
I am responding to the letter writer (March 1) positing that people are free to express their objections to same-sex marriage “no matter how misguided.” I confess to being one of the “misguided.”
While the writer is correct in asserting that “two consenting adults should have the right to unite as partners in a loving relationship,” that argument fails as a justification for same-sex marriage. While consenting adults may do what they please, it is society at large that should define those relationships given the sacred legal rights and responsibilities of marriage. Otherwise, consenting adults in polygamous or even incestuous relationships would have equal justification to demand a right to marry.
My own view is that 10,000 years of the societal norm that marriage is between one man and one woman should not be lightly shoved aside. The Supreme Court’s decision declaring that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right had the unfortunate effect of removing this important issue from the democratic process.
Since the states were envisioned by our founders to be the “laboratories of democracy,” each state should have the right to define the legal institution of marriage in accordance with the will of its citizens.
John DiChiara
Deland
Guns
Much energy has been expended in recent weeks in a predictably fruitless effort to persuade the Legislature to ban certain assault weapons, which few seriously contend are protected by the Second Amendment.
This energy should be redirected toward amendment of the state constitution. Those who insist they have a right to such weapons may then have their day in court.
Louis F. Hubener
Tallahassee
