Vote to End Jury Deadlock May Cost Attorney His Law License

Legal Ethics

Vote to End Jury Deadlock May Cost Attorney His Law License

Posted Feb 19, 2008, 11:02 am CDT
By Martha Neil

A San Francisco attorney is facing potential disbarment because while serving on a jury in 2004, he reportedly cast the deciding vote to end a deadlock simply so that he could return to his law practice.

Earlier this month, a State Bar Court judge in California recommended that Francis Fahy be disbarred, after finding, as the Recorder puts it, that "he had corrupted a jury by casting the deciding vote in a medical malpractice case just so he could get back to work." The article is reprinted by New York Lawyer (reg. req.).

Among the aggravating factors in Fahy's case, according to Judge Lucy Armendariz, were that he lied by initially claiming he had cast his deciding vote based on the evidence, and still hasn't taken responsibility for what he has done, as shown by his argument that he has done nothing wrong. His actions resulted in wasted time for the court, the jury and the lawyers involved, because the case had to be retried, she points out in her ruling.

The California Supreme Court must approve Armendariz's recommendation before Fahy can be disbarred.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Eileen - 4 months, 1 week, 5 days, 13 hours, 40 minutes ago

How did they figure out why he voted? Was he stupid enough to brag or tell fellow jurors the reason he was voting one way or the other. Anyone who goes to law school knows juror deliberations are shielded unless you do something dumb like admit to illegal/immoral conduct.
Posted by vlawsonn1104@hotmail.com - 4 months, 1 week, 5 days, 9 hours, 50 minutes ago

Hey. Just thought you should read this.
Posted by Dawn - 4 months, 1 week, 5 days, 9 hours, 49 minutes ago

Thought you should read this...interesting
Posted by Pete - 4 months, 1 week, 4 days, 55 minutes ago

What an encouragement for lawyers to answer the call to serve the legal system as a juror. Ridiculous.
Posted by Scott - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 16 hours, 33 minutes ago

What an utterly ridiculous action by this, obviously, ignorant jurist.

Has she never heard of “jury nullification”? The time tested, fundamental basis for the American Jury system, which runs to the effect that jurors have the absolute power to vote their juror’s vote for whatever reason they want, even a bad one, and there is nothing the Courts are empowered to do about it.

This kind of action is why lawyers do not want to serve on juries. They are treated differently than other jurors ... have significantly less rights than the average citizen. This is, also, a harbinger of the coming crack down on lawyers, similar to the kind of crack down in other countries, where if a lawyer does not act exactly in accordance with the beliefs of those in power, he, or she, is stripped of his license, or even jailed.

Abhorrent rulings.
Posted by Max Hansen - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 14 hours, 58 minutes ago

Scott made a good argument on the general aspects of jury nullification but using that to get to “abhorrent rulings” misses the point. We might cut a non-lawyer some slack if they cast a vote to get back to work, but all lawyers are officers of the court and members of a learned profession. They have a responsibility to advance the best interests of our legal system and the lawyer in this case obviously put his own self-interest before his responsibility of seeing that justice was done. If Scott has not figured that out, and is an attorney, perhaps he ought to get into another line of work.
Posted by Tony - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 10 hours, 51 minutes ago

I still want the answer to number 1. How did they “figure this out.” Even if he told people he cast his vote in a manner calculated to get him back to work, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the vote was incorrect or improper. The fact that he was breaking a deadlock implies that members of the panel saw it both ways. Moreover, if anyone thinks that jurors don’t cast votes (especially in civil trials) so that they can return to their lives, then they are fooling themselves. Go read or watch “12 Angry Men.”

Frankly, if I had been stuck on the OJ jury, I might have caved in favor of getting my life back to! Jurrors are people. The courts expect them to put their lives on hold for $12 a day. How many of you could shut down your practice for a week or more in exchange for a few hundred dollars?

There is a flaw in this system. I’m not entirely sure how to fix it, but its the reason why jurys are chocked full of people who spend their days watchin Oprah Wynfry instead of people who are educated and hold responsible professional positions. If I’m on trial for my life, I’d rather have the latter than the former making the call (unless they are in such a big hurry to get back to work that they’d send me up the river just to get it over with).

What’s the answer?
Posted by Fred Hait - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 7 hours, 53 minutes ago

And lay jurors have never cast a vote for the same reason? Give me a break!
Posted by Dave - 4 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 30 minutes ago

Scott’s comment seems to go too far. Taking his comment literally, a juror could base his/her vote on a bribe and not expect to suffer any consequences
Posted by JYP - 4 months, 1 week, 2 days, 8 hours, 50 minutes ago

Yes, believe it or not, the lawyer HIMSELF announced his reason for the change. The jury foreperson took that info to the trial judge b/c foreperson [correctly, of course] believed it was inappropriate to base a vote on anything other than evidence or judge instructions. The California Bar’s website has the opinion posted, which is pending Supreme Court approval.
Posted by Rob Garretson - 4 months, 3 days, 5 hours, 10 minutes ago

This also show the dangers of being in State Court. In Federal Court the Judge could not even have inquired into how the juror’s reached their decision and this whole issue would have been eliminated. Tanner v. U.S., 483 U.S. 107 (1987).

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Ethics