Lawyer Told that ‘Falling on His Sword’ in Courtroom Walkout Has Painful Consequences
A Maryland lawyer has lost his law license for 60 days for walking out of a court hearing and advising his client to do the same.
The Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, suspended lawyer Norman Usiak for 60 days in an opinion (PDF) released Monday. The Legal Profession Blog has details.
Usiak walked out after the judge denied a motion for a continuance jointly filed by Usiak and the prosecutor. Usiak’s client was charged with driving without a license, and Usiak wanted him to obtain a driver’s permit before the trial, scheduled to begin that day. Usiak’s hope was that the prosecutor would drop charges after his client obtained the permit.
The prosecutor agreed to the continuance because the state had not provided discovery until the day before. Judge Janice Rudnick Ambrose refused to postpone the trial, however, but said she would delay it until that afternoon. Later, the prosecutor moved to “stet” the case, which means it would have been indefinitely postponed. Ambrose did not agree to the move. The opinion has this exchange:
Ambrose: “This case has not been stetted Mr. Usiak unless you are rewriting the rules.”
Usiak: “The appropriate mechanism—”
Ambrose: “Unless you are rewriting the rules, the court’s not granting the stet. So the state—the case—is open.”
Usiak: “It is not within the providence of the court.”
Ambrose: “It is the court’s providence Mr. Usiak. I think you better sit down and read the rules.”
Usiak: “No Your Honor I, I, we’re leaving. Your Honor. Excuse me.”
After Usiak left, Ambrose held him in contempt and fined him $250. Usiak claimed he could not hear Ambrose’s instructions that he remain in the courtroom, but the hearing judge disagreed. Usiak also said he advised his client to leave, but gave him the option of staying in the courtroom and being represented by a lawyer that Usiak would find at no cost to the client.
The Court of Appeals noted the hearing judge’s findings that Usiak had “history” with Ambrose and his conduct appears to be an isolated event. According to the hearing officer, Usiak’s conduct was “neither corrupt nor immoral” but it was “annoying and disrespectful.”
“The character of his conduct seems in the nature of ‘tilting at windmills’ rather than zealously protecting the rights and interests of his client,” the hearing officer said. “Having fallen upon his sword, respondent now complains that falling on his sword has painful consequences. He is now accountable in these proceedings for his conduct.”
In a separate courthouse disagreement, Usiak was arrested in 2007 when an officer at the appeals court in Annapolis asked to see his identification and Usiak refused. Usiak told the Baltimore Sun that he took a stand because he viewed the request as “the antithesis of access to a free court system.” He filed a $700,000 lawsuit last September claiming false arrest.
