Constitutional Law
Law Grad Who Dissed Courts Loses Appeal Over Denied Law License
Posted Jun 4, 2008 8:03 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Updated: A federal appeals court has tossed a civil rights and First Amendment claim filed by a law graduate who claims he was denied a law license because of his disdain for the Michigan justice system and his complaints about members of a bar and fitness committee who mentioned his views in a report.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (PDF) the claim by Frank Lawrence Jr. could not be pursued in federal courts.
Lawrence had told interviewers with the Michigan bar’s character and fitness committee that he had little respect for the state court system, and federal courts are the guardians of the Constitution. He also operated a website called StateBarWatch that criticized the State Bar of Michigan and the State Board of Law Examiners.
The committee recommended that Lawrence be denied a law license. “We are concerned about providing a law license to someone who, even before he has handled his first case as a member of the bar, has effectively written off such a huge component of the justice system,” it wrote.
Lawrence later contacted the employers of the committee members to complain, but it did no good. Law examiners accepted the committee's recommendation. Lawrence then requested a hearing, and examiners questioned him about the employer contacts. They went on to affirm the denial of the law license.
The 6th Circuit said Lawrence’s First Amendment claim was a direct attack on a state court judgment that was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It also said state officials involved in the license denial had immunity from Lawrence’s civil rights claims.
The blog How Appealing comments: “It is too early to tell whether today's ruling will cause the plaintiff to dislike the federal judicial system almost as much as he apparently dislikes Michigan's state court system.”
For his part, Lawrence tells ABAJournal.com in an e-mail that he wasn’t surprised at the 6th Circuit decision due to the makeup of the panel. He plans to seek certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. “I have faith in the Supreme Court, and in particular Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the true guardian of our constitutional rights,” he says.
Lawrence says he holds the Michigan court system in low regard because a majority of Michigan Supreme Court justices have been hostile to civil rights plaintiffs. He says he doesn’t regret answering truthfully when the character and fitness committee asked about his political beliefs, and he would do it again.
In the meantime, Lawrence is employed by his lawyer, Dennis Dubuc, “who has dedicated his law practice to helping the underdogs of society,” Lawrence says.
Updated at 8 p.m. on 06-05-2008 to add comments from Lawrence and at 11 a.m. on 06-06-2008 to include information about Lawrence's complaints to employers of members of the character and fitness committee.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
John Charles Thompson, Jr.
Jun 4, 2008 9:30 AM CST
Who died and left authority to the Courts; the legislature; or the executive branch of our government the power to say that a person may not be represented by a person of his or her own choice?
Flag this comment
mmejustice
Jun 4, 2008 10:51 AM CST
Kinda smells like a constructive violation of Mr. Lawrence’s First Amendment rights. Yet another example of the fallout from nearly eight years of constitutional rights being treated like constitutional impediments to tyranny.
Flag this comment
Gary L. Zerman
Jun 4, 2008 12:57 PM CST
This decision clearly gives credence to the existence of the “Good Ol’ Boys Club” and that judges think they are gods, rather than - public servants. Further, it seems that it is impossible to reconcile this case with Fieger & Steinberg v. Michigan Supreme Court, Civil Action No. 06-11684, USDC-Eastern Dist., Southern Div., where USDC Judge Arthur Tarnow ruled (9/4/07) in favor of Fieger, finding that the Michagan Rules of Professional Conduct (the so-called ‘courtesy & civility’ provisions) were unconstitutional - as vague & overbroad - and violated 1st & 14th Amendment rights of Fieger, when he was disciplined under the rules for criticizing some Michigan judges - much more harshly than Mr. Lawrence. Fieger’s case earlier went up to the 6th Cir. and it allowed his case to continue. Where was the ABA when Lawrence was in need of some help?
Flag this comment
Frank Lawrence, Jr.
Jun 4, 2008 4:29 PM CST
We’re going to take this to the Supreme Court. The opinion makes no mention of the fact that this was an unreviewed decision of an administrative body that was created by the Michigan Legislature. There has been no “state court judgment”, and therefore, Rooker-Feldman cannot apply according to Exxon Mobil. Also, the panel omitted any mention of the fact that I asserted a reservation of federal claims and defenses during the state proceedings, which according to the law of the Sixth Circuit, should have avoided any Rooker-Feldman problems. DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 523, fn.9 (6th Cir. 2004); Barnes v. McDowell, 848 F.2d 725, 732 (6th Cir 1988); Wicker v. Bd. of Educ., 826 F.2d 442, 446 (6th Cir. 1987). Also, the denial of prospective relief conflicts with Dubuc v. Mich. Bd. of Law Examiners, 342 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2003) and Centifanti v. Nix, 865 F.2d 1422, 1430 (3d Cir 1989). If anyone would like to help me try to get this thing reversed, please contact me. Thanks.
Flag this comment
Philip J Stoddard
Jun 4, 2008 5:30 PM CST
Hey Gary, the ABA guys were out buying drinks for the panel that wrote that disaster. Or maybe they bought the drinks while the panel was writing it. This is the most violent attack on free speech since the alien and sedition acts.
My God, does the idea of “Rule of Law” mean anything in this country?
Flag this comment
D. Couture
Jun 4, 2008 7:25 PM CST
Did I just read some judicious comment above relative to lack of subscribing to the Rule of Law? “When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.”—(See 16 Ma. Jur. 2d 177, 178) State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 NW 262, 30 L.R.A. 630 Am. St. 459. Constitutional Torts of felonious magnitude are what we are up against, folks, and the canadian judiciairy, which jurisdiction I research, is also no exception to the “rule”. So where to go from here? Become a Rule of Law Expert… the EQUITAS Way! www.eqrolc.ca—Enjoy !
Keep Up The Good Work F. Lawrence !
Flag this comment
Philip J Stoddard
Jun 5, 2008 9:24 PM CST
Geez. I can’t stand the “C word” but it looks like some kind of ##$%*&% thing to me. I think there’s a section in Title 18 that makes it a crime. But wait a minute: these perps are above the law.
Anyway, I second D. Couture’s emotion. Keep ‘em pumpin’ Frank! There’s so much bad precedent out there now on bar admissions that another fiasco can’t make it worse.
At least you’re smoking them out of their nasty little holes.
Flag this comment
A Yung
Jun 6, 2008 5:33 AM CST
This guy should NOT be in the bar. I say keep him out. He is a dillweed, and we already have enough jerks in the bar. No one is saying he can’t go to law school, just that he can’t be in the bar. The bar is a priviledge, not a right, so I don’t know what all these other a-wipes are crying about. I vote to keep this jerk OUT of my bar association.
Flag this comment
associate
Jun 6, 2008 7:27 AM CST
From a practical standpoint:
Really, how hard is it to just jump through hoops for a few months while ending law school and studying for the bar? If you can’t do that then I must say you’re probably ill prepared for the marathon hoop jumping required of you in the actual legal profession.
Professors do it all the time. They just agree with crazy academic stuff like a good little boy until they get tenure and are allowed to actually deviate from the crazy stuff a little (not a lot, or you’l stilll be ousted).
Sometimes, you do just have to go a long a bit to get what you want. You don’t have to sacrifice your personal values, but you can choose to be less expressive while it has the potential to cost you your future.
Flag this comment
ug
Jun 6, 2008 9:02 AM CST
This applicant was and is a nut who should saty on the sidelines hurling epithets. The last thing our profession needs is a guy who has no respect for the very judicial system he would apparently wish to become an officer for. Good call.
Flag this comment
Tom
Jun 6, 2008 11:34 AM CST
In 40 years at the bar I’ve met enough nuts with law licenses to not worry about one more. In fact, many were on the bench.
Flag this comment
bpclark
Jun 6, 2008 11:36 AM CST
“For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests-especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to ‘produce a result which (it) could not command directly.’ Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526, 78 S.Ct. 1332, 1342, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460. Such interference with constitutional rights is impermissible.”
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2697 (1972).
Flag this comment
Andy the Lawyer
Jun 6, 2008 11:36 AM CST
There are too many lawyers in the USA. There probably are too many lawyers in Michigan. This grumpy adolescent’s absence from the rolls of that state bar will not be missed.
Flag this comment
Jesse Hoffman
Jun 6, 2008 11:44 AM CST
Was the kid really a “dillweed” or a “nut” who was “hurling epithets”? The artice said he was asked for an oppinion and he simplly answered the question. It sounds like the kid was excluded for his oppinions which were offered only because they were sollicited. Even if he had posted highway billboards and hosted an anti-court-system blog, this decision would be a good first amendment case. But at least then I would understand the review boards consternation.
But this doesn’t sound like a nut ranting on about our court system. It sounds like a “kid” who was asked for his oppinion on the state of our court system by an authoritative board, and he felt compelled to answer truthfully and civily. I think our current president and most of his staff are absolutely out of their mind and have broken this country in half. Does that mean I should be denied citizenship? We are allowed to disagree with a system, and still participate in it. Otherwise our systems would never have a mechanism for improvement. Who knows, maybe the kid is right. It wouldn’t be the first time a local court system was packed with political cronees.
Flag this comment
Stan the Legal Man
Jun 6, 2008 11:50 AM CST
Do they still offer Dale Carnage classes?
Flag this comment
Ed Brewer
Jun 6, 2008 12:48 PM CST
Commenting on the MI bar’s approach to this—gee, I don’t want to jeopardize my ability to get licensed in MI., But I do hope the recent graduate is pursuing his state-law remedies, since that could be the only way he gets to the Supreme Court, for whatever good that may prove to do him.
Flag this comment
Rick
Jun 6, 2008 12:48 PM CST
“... in particular Justice John Paul Stevens, who is the true guardian of our constitutional rights”
Huh?
Flag this comment
Another Attorney
Jun 6, 2008 12:51 PM CST
I have no sympathy for this blowhard. Becoming an officer of the court is not an inalienable right, but rather a privilege that the court system has every right to constrain as it sees fit. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes correctly observed when rejecting a similar claim by a fired police officer, he “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Unfortunately, a good deal of Supreme Court jurisprudence since then has muddied the waters and injected a rights analysis into a privileges setting.
Flag this comment
Actually read the constitution
Jun 6, 2008 1:15 PM CST
Thank you all for giving me my laugh for the day. He would probably end up as another ambulance chaser under the guise of a “civil rights lawyer.” Good riddance - even though it WILL get reversed because of that whole First Amendment thing.
Flag this comment
Seattle Attorney
Jun 6, 2008 1:22 PM CST
Regardless of what you think of the applicant or his opinions, it is a violation of first amendment rights to deny his license because he was asked his opinion and gave it, whether favorable to the court or not.
I think back to one of my own law school exams where I described a portion of the law as a “multiple personality case” and wonder if the MI bar would deny my license for that less than favorable opinion.
And really just because you might think he’s a jerk, there are tons of other lawyers who are jerks and they all got their licenses. Just because you might not want to deal with them doesn’t mean they aren’t entitled to the fruits of their labors.
Flag this comment
Brook
Jun 6, 2008 1:24 PM CST
Question: Why were you in front of the character and fitness board to begin with?
Flag this comment
mpt
Jun 6, 2008 1:25 PM CST
Um, why don’t you start with a petition for rehearing en banc before you post your SCOTUS brief here. John Paul Stevens is on vacay anyway. I know because I’m his law clerk. and I’m recommending that the panel be affirmed based on your patheric comparison to Exxon Mobile, which btw won’t help you if you haven’t bothered to exhaust your administrative remedies in the first place as you have just admitted to doing here.
Flag this comment
Jeff Schwartz
Jun 6, 2008 1:26 PM CST
“As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes correctly observed when rejecting a similar claim by a fired police officer, he ‘may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.’” Isn’t this the same jerkoff who said that “three generations of imbeciles is enough”? Oliver Wendell Holmes was to Supreme Court jurisprudence what Bob Uecker was to baseball—he made it to the majors, but he was a laughingstock from then on.
The U.S. Constitution does NOT NOT NOT grant any rights. There are those rights that are explicitly protected by it, and there are the remaining and far larger body of rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. Sure Lawrence is a blowhard, but he absolutely does not have to find a provision in the Constitution that gives him permission to speak. Rather, the government has to find the provision in the Constitution that permits it, an otherwise powerless and impotent body, to deny the benefit of licensure. It cannot find such a provision and is obligated to license Lawrence, the semantics of right or privelege notwithstanding. I shudder at the likelihood that everyone responding to this story is a lawyer and only about half of you apparently learned anything in your Con 1 and Con 2 classes.
Flag this comment
jon
Jun 6, 2008 1:43 PM CST
I’m not excited by the guy’s comments about the court system or their apparent lack of discretion. But what bothers me more than anything is that people are so willing to say “I jumped through hoops, so so should you,” even if we think those are bogus.
It’s also interesting to see how many purported lawyers commenting on this have a layman’s view of the Constitution.
Flag this comment
Guillaume
Jun 6, 2008 1:56 PM CST
Character and fitness are indeed threshold requirements for a law license. We don’t want someone who has, say, a proven track record of fraudulent activities out there representing people as lawyers. There is a public trust delegated to the bar examiners which they should exercise. But there is a huge difference between a proven track record of fraudulent activities and a statement of opinion to the C&F committee. A smart move to make that statement? No. Some people ask for trouble. But the C&F committee has no basis to prospectively deny a license based on a statement of opinion. Does making this statement cast aspersions on the good judgment of the applicant? Sure. It raises doubts as to whether he can successfully represent a client, and might trip over himself and make unfortunate representations that lose the client’s case. That kind of analysis of fault has to be made by courts and juries evaluating legal malpractice claims, and possibly disbarment proceedings, not prospectively by the C&F committee.
Flag this comment
Wm. Powell
Jun 6, 2008 2:19 PM CST
While part of me doesn’t feel right with this kid being denied the right to try and obtain his license to practice law, I have to agree with the Court’s holding. He has already stated he thinks the court system he will be practicing in is basically a fraud. I sure wouldn’t want a judge to express such views before they took the oath or office, or a general expressing the belief that the President doesn’t know enough and should not be respected or a teacher being hired who voices disdain for the educational system they hope to be employed by. The Bar in Michigan has protected possible clients of this kid, and has attempted to protect the integrity of their bar.
Flag this comment
What's Next
Jun 6, 2008 2:22 PM CST
I’m not familiar with the Michigan justice system so I don’t know whether the opinion is justified or not. However, the point is, he was asked his opinion. He honestly gave it. Now, the oligarchy that we are becoming has decided that because he is critical of the courts, he is denied his ability to pursue his career. Is this America or Iran?
When the courts can effectively stop all criticism of their system, we are approaching very dangerous waters for the republic.
Flag this comment
James Denton
Jun 6, 2008 2:31 PM CST
Constitutional law,,,Seems like the real question is why has this guy spent substantial money and time trying to qualify for membership in an organization he apparently abhors? Irrational sense of self work, desperate search for a modern day Holy Grail quest or just plain lack of commen sense? Either way seems like C & F called it correctly. Rational thought is a valid metric for selecting new attorneys and probably a valid criterion for reassessing older ones…ah if it were only so.
Flag this comment
Jeremy D Sussman
Jun 6, 2008 2:41 PM CST
I am impressed by comments #9 and #25, even though they come to opposite conclusions. I know of a situation where the NY C#F people asked a friend of mine to list every job he ever held, and then asked each former employer why the candidate had left the job. My friend included a newspaper route he’d worked as a kid. The employer, who hardlly remembered him, said he lost interest in the job. This response prolonged the sanctimonious proceedings.
Flag this comment
Thomas Cochrane
Jun 6, 2008 3:09 PM CST
I was struck by this comment by the character and fitness committee:
“We are concerned about providing a law license to someone who, even before he has handled his first case as a member of the bar, has effectively written off such a huge component of the justice system”
Does this mean that were I to say the same thing about the Michigan court system it would be acceptable because I have been practicing and in good standing with the Michigan Bar for 12 years?
What about my father, who has been practicing in Michigan for 43 years? (Not sure but I think I may have heard him say something along these lines after his third Manhattan.)
Flag this comment
Jake
Jun 6, 2008 3:16 PM CST
+1 for Jeff Schwartz.
-1 for mpt. mpt, if you really are a clerk for J. Stevens (which, based upon your apparent grasp of grammar/punctuation, I highly doubt), then your post amounts to the most unethical, prejudicial and irresponsible ABAJournal.com comment that I’ve ever seen. Mr. Lawrence would be well advised to direct the Clerk of the Court to this post when he files his petition for cert, on the off chance that you are who you claim to be.
Flag this comment
EKS
Jun 6, 2008 3:28 PM CST
I think Jeff Schwartz just became my hero.
Flag this comment
Anonymous
Jun 6, 2008 3:46 PM CST
Brook, some states require a C&F interview before you can be admitted. NY does, for instance but they never asked about every single job I held, only those in the legal arena. I can empathize with Mr. Lawrence but I do think the Michigan C&F committee has a point. I’m interested to see how this turns out.
Flag this comment
Christopher Miller, Esq.
Jun 6, 2008 3:49 PM CST
What a tool. in my opinion, as an attorney you should have respect for the legal system you want to work in, even if you see problems that you think should be addressed.
This guy seems like an immature jerk who thinks he knows everything. Do we really need another lawyer like that?
Flag this comment
Phil Stoddard
Jun 6, 2008 3:56 PM CST
“Officer of the court” is no title of nobility: bailiffs and court reporters have as much claim to the title. Judges in this country do not legitimately exercise royal power.
I’m puzzled and concerned by comment no. 22 submitted by “mtp” who purports to clerk for John Paul Stevens. How did this guy get to be on law review?
Mr. Lawrence brought his case under 42 USC 1983. Exhaustion of administrative and/or judicial remedies is not required. Patsy vs. Board of Regents. I see that Perry vs. Sinderman has popped up in this blog. Seems like pretty powerful stuff in that case. How about Cummings vs. Missouri and Ex Parte Garland?
Mr. Lawrence properly cited Exxon-Mobil: I know because I read that case. The Sixth Circuit decision rests squarely on the arguably flawed premise that the Michigan Board of Law Examiners is a judicial court. That body is a creature of the Michigan legislature. It is an executive agency operating within limited bounds of discretion. According to the Constitution of the United States, the authority to deny a person a law license for insulting authority is not found within the bounds of that discretion. “Mtp” might also consider whether the bill of attainder clause permits such debarments from professional practice.
Anyone who thinks the Sixth Circuit’s awful attack on the First Amendment was justified should consider history. The First Amendment is the hallmark of freedom. It states a principle for which our forbears marched into battle and died. Mr. mtp seriously needs to rethink his view. I don’t think Justice Stevens would go along with the idea that a person surrenders his free speech rights when he applies for admission to the bar.
I may not agree with Lawrence and he may well be a loudmouth dillweed. However, when it comes to his right to be a loudmouth dillweed, I’ll take a bullet for him.
Flag this comment
Jennifer L. Johnson
Jun 6, 2008 4:06 PM CST
Shouldn’t applicants be encouraged to tell the truth when obtaining a license?
This is ridiculous of the 6th Circuit. Now I’m nervous about anything I will say in my interview. What if I say I don’t like the President…oops they’ll just have to kick me out! Darn!
Flag this comment
disagreeable
Jun 6, 2008 4:21 PM CST
If a practicing attorney espouses a disdain for the MI state court system, do they take his/her license away?!
Flag this comment
Candor
Jun 6, 2008 4:33 PM CST
I thought the C&F Committee held candor and honesty as the highest factor when determining an applicants chacter and fitness to practice law. Most clients would rather have an honest lawyer that shot them straight, even with the bad news, than a lawyer who lied just to make ther client feel better.
Flag this comment
colette
Jun 6, 2008 4:34 PM CST
Since when was one’s opinion a prerequisite to get a law license? Sounds a little fascist to me.
Flag this comment
Nicole
Jun 6, 2008 4:57 PM CST
Jeff Schwartz, I love you.
Flag this comment
the wanger
Jun 6, 2008 6:22 PM CST
I haven’t followed this matter or read any of the opinons, but it seems the difference between this matter and the Fieger matter is that this case involves the issuance of a licence or ability to practice an occupation, which, from my con law one distorted memory, is likely a rational basis review. Where as Feiger was just going around saying things about judges, freedom of speech, strict scrutiny. There is no constituional right to practice law. The legislature empowers the board to adminster the standards set. It would seem to me as long as the board was arguably within those standards with its concerns then this young man will not be successful in this effort. I also am unclear what exactly he wrote or said to bring him to the attention to the board to require an in-person review. Michigan does not have a first step in-person interview with the board. Your materials have to contain something that raises suspicion first, then they will escalate from there.
Flag this comment
anonymous
Jun 6, 2008 7:21 PM CST
In my opinion, this kid paid the price for saying what most of us think. It is rather tragic that the actions of a select few at the turn of the 20th century took what something that was a job more analogous to an plumber and made it into a new priesthood.
Flag this comment
relawdiculous
Jun 6, 2008 8:41 PM CST
I agree with comments #34 & #35 regarding mpt. I would be extremely disturbed to think that a highly regarded member of our Supreme Court would be assisted by someone who has made such asinine comments on an Internet posting. By the way, I think is the most coherent and intelligent Internet posting I have seen on this website - hoorah to these attorneys!
Flag this comment
don't sink the ship
Jun 6, 2008 8:45 PM CST
anyone who complains about Mr. Lawrence is a wimp. We all feel what he does. thank god some still have a spine. i’d rather have him as president than another arrogant attorney. our constitutional rights have been deteriorating so quickly that the Constitution is better used as toilet paper. ABA WHERE IS YOUR SUPPORT!!! your issue is titled “rant by grad costs law license”., should be “ABA does nothing but contribute to arrogance”.
Flag this comment
None Please
Jun 6, 2008 9:27 PM CST
I wish they did not deny him a license.
Something about crushing the little guy to it….
Flag this comment
Scared future applicant
Jun 6, 2008 11:55 PM CST
As (maybe) a future attorney, I am concerned by this situation and many of the comments posted. The character and fitness process should not be about getting even with applicants that disagree or dislike the way a court system operates. Furthermore, Mr. Lawrence had a duty to be truthful about the questions asked of him in the review process. It is very unfortunate that the character and fitness board has been allowed to treat him that way for his honesty. I’m concerned about using even my first name in this post because I may be retaliated against. Maybe I’m nieve, but I expected better from our JUSTICE system. And since when did a person become a nut for disagreeing with the system? Is this AMERICA?
Flag this comment
Don't Sink the Ship
Jun 7, 2008 7:19 AM CST
i was response #44, your response #46 is true. we are scared, that is also the reason i along with many don’t even post our first names. can’t we form an alliance and prevent this from continuing to frank and others that will follow in his situation from all state C & F committees. i’ve taken bars in 3 states. all complain about the manner they were treated by the C & F Committees. At their sole discretion, they can deny you admission after a 10 minute interview based on nothing other than a whim. i’ve studied the process for a considerable amount of time. what was intended as a benefit, has become a means to build egos.
i don’t know frank, but have spoken with him. he appears to be a nice person. it’s easy to form the quick opinion that this guy is trouble, yet he was doing nothing more than what the C&F does without the ability to do anything other than express his opinion. PLEASE CONTACT FRANK at statebarwatch.com and see what you can do to help. it certainly is easier to do nothing. however,we’ve all spent seven years in college and over $100,000. to have your dreams quashed because your opinion is contrary to a committees is not an idea our country was founded.
Flag this comment
Mike
Jun 7, 2008 8:02 AM CST
As with most articles, we don’t have all of the facts so to make such knee jerk reactions to both the C&F committee and Lawrence may be beneath us as attorneys. As with most cases, there is likely so much more that has not been said and that we do not know.
Flag this comment
Read the opinion
Jun 7, 2008 8:16 AM CST
Did anyone at the ABA Journal News read the opinion before running the article?
The comments have been interesting, but he wasn’t denied a license because he criticized Michigan’s court system. That’s only his claim which the Sixth Circuit accepted as true for purposes of deciding ripeness. The district court pleadings and briefs are online. The C&F committee mentioned its concern about this guy’s “disdain about the court system” but expressly said it didn’t play any part in its recommendation. The committee’s report talked about his criminal conviction, financial irresponsibility, employment terminations and other issues. The Board of Law Examiners denied the application because he contacted the employers of the committee members and tried to cause them problems because he didn’t like their recommendation. The Board said that personal attacks and trying to cause financial harm for the committee members isn’t the right way to fight an adverse decision. Seems reasonable to me…
As lawyers (and prospective lawyers), we should probably try to get the facts before assuming that this guy’s claims are anything more than just that. It sure seems that if the committee was out to crush him for dissent, they wouldn’t put it in the opinion. Conspiracies to subvert the constitution aren’t usually carried out in the open.
Flag this comment
Jesse
Jun 7, 2008 11:50 AM CST
Good Grief! The ABA reporter really dropped the ball on this one. He seems to have made an entire story out of the one minute detail in a drama that has been playing out over the past 7 years. I don’t fault the people responding to that article for not researching the case before they responded. Nobody here is Lawrence’s lawyer, and they all took the ABA’s report at face value. This reporter probably needs to be instructed in how to properly research an article before he posts it though. The article makes this sound like a cut and dry First Amendment dispute. It’s far from it.
I urge anyone who wants to see the whole story to take 2 minutes to read the “background” portion of the pdf linked in this article. But even that only barely mentions the longer story of how this all started. The earlier and more interesting facts can be read in an article that begins on page 39 (about half way down) of the pdf at http://www.ncbex.org/uploads/user_docrepos/750306_litigation_05.pdf.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.