Post: Law and Jurisprudence-Legal Ethics
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7ab77/7ab77609ea50f381c51b773802d8ee9c313a8f7c" alt=""
Posted by Anthony J. Fejfar BA, JD, MBA, Phd on 1/10/12
In the Old American Bar Association (ABA) Model Code of Professional Responsibility there is Canon 9 which makes it a Disciplinary Violation for the Lawyer to engage in an "Appearance of Impropriety." However, upon reflection, it is clear that the the notion of an Appearance of Impropriety is Unconstitutionally Vague and Over Broad, and also violates Substantive Due Process and 42 United States Code, Section 1983. Following the Declaration of Independence, every Lawyer has an inherent, natural right of Liberty, which can be proven with Reason. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, as early as Lochner vs. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), that each person has an inherent individual right of Liberty, which the State can only interfere with where the State law or conduct proposed is reasonable, and rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Lochner, which recognizes that everyone has a Natural Right of Liberty, follows Magna Charta (1215), and Grotius (1625), and The Declaration of Independence (1776), and The Pennsylvania Constitution (1776), and The Maryland Constitution (1776). Now, the idea of an Appearance of Impropriety as a legal standard is absolutely absurd. Such a standard could be used to say that a lawyer has to wear a certain type of tie in court, or can only date a person of the same ethnic or racial background, or cannot take pro bono work to represent certain religious or ethic groups, etc., all of which involve reasonable conduct on the part of the attorney, and therefore do not meet the requirement that the rule, enforced by the State, or State Bar, or State Judiciary, must be itself reasonable and rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Canon 9 is unconstitutional and must be repealed in order for the Bar Committees enforcing them to avoid Section 1983 tort and criminal liablity.
www.neothomism.com
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Law and Jurisprudence-Legal Ethics, 1/10/12, by Anthony J. Fejfar BA, JD, MBA, Phd.
|