Public reprimand for intemperate written submissions

A Delaware attorney has been publicly reprimanded for intemperate written submissions. The judgment goes through the American superior court law on where the boundary between zealous advocacy and impermissibly intemperate attack lies. Great minds differed; the Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Board of Professional Responsibility which found that the language did not warrant discipline. The impugned words were:

• ‘A fictionalized account of the hearing written by lawyers.’

• ‘Miraculously, with the aid of legal counsel’s imaginative and
creative writing skills, the supposed reasoning for the LIRB’s [New Castle
County Board of License, Inspection & Review’s]
decision became dramatically more extensive and well-

• ‘Fictional account of the LIRB hearing prepared weeks later.’

• ‘The written decision creates an imaginary, make-believe set of
reasons for the LIRB’s findings.’

• ‘The County cites no legal authority to support its assertion that
the LIRB’s attorney may fabricate conclusions of the LIRB in
the written decision.’

• ‘Certainly the County does not believe that the LIRB’s attorney
truly has the authority to write decisions from whole cloth.’

• ‘Laughably, the County found that the violation was not
resolved based on an illogical and irrational dissertation.’

• ‘Why would the County want to start making decisions on the
merits when it could continue to run 395 [the attorney’s client] into the ground for
sport based on whatever whimsical speculation the County
could conjure up?’

• ‘The County’s argument . . . constitutes pure sophistry.’

• ‘The County’s own answering brief provides the legal authority
to quickly dispense with this ridiculous argument.’

• ‘Never one to miss an opportunity to deny a party the right to a
fair and impartial hearing on the merits.’

• ‘Otherwise the County would be permitted to appoint a group of
monkeys to the LIRB, and simply allow the attorney to interpret
the grunts and groans of the ape members and reach whatever
conclusion the attorney wished from the documents of record.’

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply