Latest news with #RulesofProfessionalConduct
Miami Herald
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Florida Bar failed to do its job on Bondi, and Miami Herald should have said so
On June 5, three civil society groups and 70 prominent lawyers, law professors and judges filed a complaint with The Florida Bar, urging it to investigate how U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi misused the concept of 'zealous advocacy' to serve the Trump administration's goals. As Miami Herald federal courts reporter Jay Weaver's June 7 article on the complaint documents, Bondi violated her fundamental ethical obligations by repeatedly firing Justice Department lawyers — or forcing them to resign — when they insisted on acting ethically. In the most glaring example, she fired a department lawyer for telling the truth in court. The Florida Bar, which is responsible for enforcing the state's Rules of Professional Conduct fairly and impartially, rejected the complaint the very next day. The Bar claimed it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.' In doing so, The Florida Bar abdicated its responsibility to both the public and the legal profession. Rather than calling on The Florida Bar to do its job, the Miami Herald Editorial Board wrote a deeply confused editorial criticizing the signers of the complaint — including two former Florida Supreme Court justices — for seeking accountability. The editorial argued that the complaint aimed to politicize Bondi's unethical conduct. Ironically, the editorial acknowledged that Bondi is 'deeply political' and committed to advancing President Trump's agenda 'at all costs.' It even affirmed that 'ethical standards must be enforced' because they are 'a cornerstone of the legal profession.' The editorial also conceded that Bondi's conduct warrants 'scrutiny' due to the 'enormous amount of power' she holds. Yet it rejected an investigation by the one entity Florida law charges with regulating attorney ethics. In the Herald's Kafkaesque world, when political actors commit ethical violations, nothing should be done — because taking action might fuel partisanship. Surely, it cannot be that Americans must accept a federal government that acts unethically and without consequence. That's intolerable in a nation governed by the rule of law. The Florida Bar is simply wrong in claiming it cannot investigate ethical violations by federal 'constitutional officers.' In passing the McDade Amendment, Congress explicitly rejected the Bar's argument that investigating federal officials would encroach on federal authority. The McDade Amendment states plainly: 'Attorneys for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules... to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.' Rather than attacking the complainants, the Herald's Editorial Board should have directed its criticism at The Florida Bar for evading its oversight duties. A newspaper known for tough and independent investigative reporting should not shirk from holding the Attorney General — or the Bar itself — accountable. James W. Conrad, Jr. heads Conrad Law & Policy Counsel, Abbe Smith is a member of the Georgetown University Law Center and Ellen Yaroshefsky is a professor at Hofstra School of Law. All three were were signatories to the complaint.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge upholds dismissal in Rockingham County defamation suit; plaintiff plans appeal
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, N.C. (WGHP) — A Wake County judge upheld his motion to dismiss a former Rockingham County commissioner's defamation lawsuit following allegations of a potential conflict of interest involving the presiding judge, according to attorneys familiar with the case. On May 16, Judge Hoyt G. Tessener sided against former Rockingham County Commissioner T. Craig Travis in his 2024 defamation suit against former Commissioner Don Powell and sitting commissioners Mark Richardson and Kevin Berger, son of North Carolina State Sen. Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), as well as Rockingham County Republican Party Chair Diane Parnell, the North Carolina Conservatives Fund, Atlas Political Consulting LLC and GOPAC Inc. Travis's legal team filed a motion to set aside the dismissal on May 22, expressing the belief that the deciding judge had a conflict of interest due to alleged connections to Speaker of the House Tim Moore and Senate President Phil Berger (R-Rockingham County). Although the court's formal written order has not been made available in the North Carolina eCourts system as of Monday, attorneys for both the defense and the plaintiff confirmed that the judge upheld his dismissal at a May 30 hearing. Rockingham County commissioners, other defendants seek protective order in defamation lawsuit An attorney for the defendants, W. Ellis Boyle, said, 'The Court got the right answer and acted completely properly as expected of a judicial officer. Plaintiff's claims never had any credibility and were always a vehicle for an improper lawfare attack against political foes. Lawyers should not countenance such abuses of the legal process deploying sleight of hand.' Alicia Jurney, an attorney for Travis, pushed back on claims that she and fellow attorneys Kimberly Bryan and Stephanie Jenkins acted improperly. 'Any assertion that Ms. Bryan, Ms. Jenkins, or I acted improperly is false,' Jurney said. 'We have fully complied with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Every document filed on behalf of Mr. Travis has been well grounded in fact, supported by the law, and in good faith in pursuit of Mr. Travis's defamation claims against the defendants.' Travis's legal team plans to appeal the dismissal and the order upholding it. Boyle told FOX8 that the court announced sanctions against the plaintiff for placing otherwise unattainable discovery into a defamation claim; Jurney, however, tells FOX8 that the judge said he would take the recommendation under advisement and that the court had not followed up with any further communication regarding sanctions, which she says would have no basis. FOX8 is working to obtain further details from Wake County court. In the original lawsuit, Travis, an outspoken opponent of a proposed casino in Rockingham County, says he chose not to run for reelection to the Board of Commissioners in 2022 due to his belief in term limits. However, in 2023, he said that multiple citizens, who also opposed the casino, reached out to him and inspired him to run again. Developer tied to casinos eyes Rockingham County land as NC lawmakers consider another new gambling law Ultimately, Travis came in fourth in the Republican primary and did not advance to the general election with the top three vote-getters. He garnered 5,506 votes, three votes short of Kevin Berger's 5,509. In the lawsuit, Travis alleges that his loss was due to defamation by the defendants. 'When the plaintiff campaigned on his opposition to the pro-casino measures supported by the incumbent Commissioners and opposed by the majority of residents of Rockingham County, the defendant Commissioners sought to discredit him by publishing defamatory statements to voters in the 2024 Republican primary election,' the lawsuit said. The lawsuit lays out Travis's belief that Kevin Berger and other members of the board acted inappropriately in their attempts to bring a casino to Rockingham County, including closed-door meetings that would violate North Carolina statute and multiple donations from lobbyists and officials associated with In a motion filed to issue a protective order against Travis after the plaintiff filed multiple subpoenas in quick succession, the defendants stated, 'Although the Complaint characterizes this action as a defamation lawsuit against county commissioners, it opens with a 17-page story about the alleged politics and lobbying surrounding the legalization of casinos in North Carolina, and no connection to any purported defamation.' Travis claims that the defendants' campaign messages and social media posts about his candidacy rose above typical political mudslinging due to his opposition to the casino proposition. 'The false statements made about Mr. Travis in the False Attack Ads, Facebook posts, email, and other communications described herein constitute more than the mere vituperation and name-calling that is characteristic of political campaigns and protected by the First Amendment,' the lawsuit said. 'These false statements were made with actual malice and intended to harm Mr. Travis's reputation in Rockingham County by lowering Mr. Travis in the estimation of potential voters in the 2024 Board of Commissioners election through deliberate deception and deterring them from supporting his campaign.' 'I call it deception,' North Carolina landowner expresses regret over making deal after learning about casino plans According to the suit, a clip of Travis speaking was deceptively edited to remove context so that it would falsely appear that Travis intended to raise taxes in Rockingham County. Mailers allegedly accused Travis of opposing budget increases for the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office, which the former commissioner said was not true. GOPAC filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in which they wrote that they 'did not make any of the statements alleged in the Complaint in Craig Travis v. P. Kevin Berger et al. It did not send the text messages or mailers referenced in the Complaint.' Beginning on Feb. 8, 2022, and continuing through March 5, 2024, the lawsuit said, 'Defendant [Donald] Powell falsely stated to many people that Mr. Travis had vandalized his vehicle.' Those claims include an alleged accusation that Travis ripped the valve stems out of the tires on Powell's vehicle, which was not true, according to the suit. The lawsuit alleges that Kevin Berger, Powell, Richardson and Parnell told others that Travis had stolen campaign signs for the other candidates running for the Board of Commissioners. In a filing submitted in support of a motion to dismiss, the defendant's legal team argued that Travis's lawsuit repeatedly accuses individuals of making defamatory comments but does not state to whom those comments were made. The lawsuit does not identify individuals to whom Powell allegedly told that Travis had ripped out the valve stem or to whom Kevin Berger, Powell and Richardson allegedly told that Travis had stolen campaign signs. According to the filing, Parnell allegedly said on Facebook, 'When you do not see signs for [Powell], [Kevin Berger], Ben Curtis and [Richardson], they have been stolen. Signs put out at 5 and gone by 8… signs replaced… and the 'dark side' is out there again… stealing campaign signs…' The suit claims that Parnell's Facebook friends and followers would recognize that she was using 'the dark side' to refer to Travis based on Parnell's previous statements on her Facebook page, in private messages and in personal conversations. Removing campaign signs that were placed legally is a . The defendants argue that the accusations described in the lawsuit do not meet the legal standard for defamation. Camp for special needs children among plaintiffs in lawsuit against Rockingham County over casino rezoning Travis states in the lawsuit that these statements and accusations, which he says are false and stem from his opposition to the casino project, contributed not only to his loss in the primary but also to a loss of his good reputation within Rockingham County. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida Bar dismisses complaints against Miami mayor, former city attorney
The Florida Bar has dismissed a pair of complaints that former City Commissioner Ken Russell filed against Miami Mayor Francis Suarez and former City Attorney Victoria Méndez accusing them of 'misconduct' relating to legislation that the city passed in 2022 finalizing the billion-dollar Miami Freedom Park soccer stadium deal. The crux of Russell's complaints involved a piece of legislation the mayor signed in 2022 after the City Commission voted to award a 99-year lease to David Beckham and businessmen Jorge and Jose Mas to develop Miami Freedom Park on the site of the former Melreese golf course. The stadium will become the home of the Inter Miami team. The deal needed four-fifths approval from the City Commission, and Russell agreed to be the swing vote after his colleagues agreed to an amendment requiring half of the $20 million parks contribution from the Miami Freedom Park developers to be spent on parks throughout the city. The other half was to be spent on a 58-acre public park attached to the stadium site. But the legislation that Suarez signed finalizing the commission vote did not include Russell's amendment. Méndez was the city attorney at the time of the 2022 vote. The City Attorney's Office oversees City Commission legislation. The discrepancy came to a head last month when Suarez announced a proposal to ensure the entire $20 million parks contribution could be spent exclusively on the park attached to the stadium site. Russell filed the complaints against Suarez and Méndez, who are both practicing lawyers, on Feb. 25. Nine days later, on March 6, an attorney for the Florida Bar wrote in letters addressed to Russell that the issues raised 'are political questions beyond The Florida Bar's jurisdiction and therefore not reviewable by the bar.' 'Appropriate remedies, if any, can be sought through the political process and/or the courts,' the letters stated. The Bar attorney added that the contents of Russell's complaints 'do not constitute violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and accordingly, your inquiry does not fall within the purview of the grievance system framework.' On Tuesday, Russell filed official paperwork to run for mayor of Miami in the 2025 election. In a statement posted to Instagram on Wednesday, Suarez — who will leave office later this year because of term limits — took aim at Russell's candidacy. 'As I predicted,' Suarez said, 'the Florida Bar dismissed the complaint almost as fast as Ken Russell could file to run for his next failed office.' Reached by the Miami Herald, Suarez declined to comment beyond his public post. In a statement, Méndez said: 'I obviously concur with the Florida Bar's finding that no violation of the Florida Rules of Professional conduct took place, and I am pleased with the result.' Russell said in a statement that through its dismissal, the Florida Bar 'has decided that a lawyer preparing a misrepresentative legal document for another lawyer who signs that misrepresentative document is a political issue outside their purview. As usual, there is no accountability for unethical behavior in the City of Miami.' 'The greatest shame is that the Mayor's actions have defunded over 100 acres of desperately needed new park space in the city,' Russell added. 'This was no accident or oversight and it is inexcusable. Whether this decision was legal or political, it's wrong. I won't stop until those parks are properly funded and built.'
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Yahoo
Second New Mexico defense attorney implicated in DWI scheme
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – A second New Mexico defense attorney has been publicly identified and accused of taking part in a scheme to get accused drunk drivers off the hook. A New Mexico board that disciplines attorneys said Rudolph 'Rudy' Chavez was part of a public corruption scandal that dates back to 1995. According to state law, an attorney's law license may be suspended when the disciplinary counsel is investigating that attorney for an alleged violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. On March 6, the state's chief disciplinary counsel filed a petition for summary suspension saying Rudy Chavez is under investigation, so it wants the NM Supreme Court to suspend him. In the document, the Disciplinary Board claimed Chavez worked with former Albuquerque Police officer Honorio Alba, Jr. and paralegal Ricardo 'Rick' Mendez to get an accused drunk driver's case dismissed. Story continues below Video: Wrong way high-speed chase on I-25 in Albuquerque ends in arrest Environment: ABQ BioPark moves some birds indoors to protect them from avian flu Real Estate: Private lake retreat listed for $3.1 million in Santa Rosa Both Alba and Mendez admitted in plea agreements that they worked with an unnamed Albuquerque criminal defense attorney, who the state's chief disciplinary counsel recently identified as Chavez, to get the case dismissed. KRQE Investigates obtained video from the DWI case in question, where Alba conducted a DWI stop on a Sunday night in April 2023. In the video, Alba is seen conducting a field sobriety test on a driver he pulled over on I-25 north near the Jefferson exit. Alba claimed the driver swerved in and out of lanes and almost hit other cars while traveling 90 miles per hour. Alba then arrested the driver, who later blew a 0.14 and 0.15 on the alcohol breath test, nearly twice the legal limit. At that time, the driver already had two DWI convictions on his record. From that arrest, he was facing a 3rd DWI offense, along with reckless driving, no proof of insurance, and possession of open container charges. According to the petition submitted to the New Mexico Supreme Court, the driver then hired defense attorney Rudy Chavez to represent him in the case—a move that caught the attention of federal investigators. The driver told KRQE Investigative Reporter Ann Pierret that he found Chavez from a Google search. He reiterated several times that Chavez didn't make any promises, or do anything that raised red flags, or would make him question the attorney's integrity. The driver told KRQE Investigates that he paid Chavez $8,000 to represent him, which he claimed was lower than other attorneys he spoke with. The driver added that Chavez told him the price was that high because it was his third DWI. The driver's case was dismissed in January 2024, and according to court documents, the decision was 'in the interest of justice.' The driver explained to KRQE Investigates that he had his suit on and was ready to go to his court hearing when Chavez told him the news of his case getting dismissed. The driver said he thought he was just lucky, until the FBI called him last year. He said he told investigators that he didn't know anything about a scheme. The federal investigation had shown some clients were left in the dark, but KRQE Investigates learned one way Alba carried out the scheme was by taking their driver's license and/or email and giving those items to Mendez. Mendez, who worked with Defense Attorney Thomas Clear III, would later contact the driver and in exchange for payment, help get their case dismissed by making sure officers missed their court appearances. In this case, the driver said Alba took both his license and email, but he said he never heard from Clear's law office. The petition for summary suspension submitted to the New Mexico Supreme Court requests that Chavez be suspended from practicing law. KRQE Investigates called and emailed attorney Chavez for a comment on the petition and did not hear back. The court previously revoked Clear's law license for being the 'mastermind' of the DWI dismissal scheme. In February, Clear took a plea deal, admitting that he worked with DWI officers from around the metro to funnel drunk drivers to his office and convince them to pay him thousands of dollars to get them off the hook. While looking through court records, KRQE Investigates noticed Chavez took over a number of Clear's cases after the feds raided Clear's law office in January 2024. The two also worked on several cases together going back to June 2006. The State Bar of New Mexico shows Chavez joined in 1981 and practices in Bernalillo, Sandoval, and Taos counties. Chavez's website mentioned The National Advocacy for DUI Defense, LLC recognized him as one of the 'Top 50 DWI Attorneys' in New Mexico. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
07-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Senate Democrats file complaint against DC US attorney Ed Martin
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have filed a formal complaint against D.C. U.S. attorney Ed Martin with the District of Columbia's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, accusing him of dismissing criminal charges against his own clients and threatening prosecution against government employees to intimidate them. 'We write to express our grave concern about actions taken by Edward Robert Martin, Jr. that may constitute professional misconduct under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct,' wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter, signed by all ten Democrats on the Judiciary panel, asks for the disciplinary counsel, which is overseen by the D.C. Court of Appeals to investigate whether Martin, a member of the D.C. Bar, violated rules of professional conduct. 'When a government lawyer, particularly one entrusted with a leadership role in the nation's foremost law enforcement agency, commits serious violations of professional conduct, it undermines the integrity of our justice system and erodes public confidence in it,' they wrote. Specifically, the lawmakers say that Martin while in private practice served as defense counsel in several cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, before personally submitting a motion to dismiss felony and misdemeanor counts against Joseph Padilla and failing to recuse himself from the case as acting U.S. attorney creating 'an impermissible conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety by using his new government office to favor his client.' They say Martin also appeared as defense counsel for another Jan. 6 defendant, William Chrestman, a member of the Proud Boys' Kansas City chapter, who was sentenced to four and a half years in prison after pleading guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and threatening a federal officer. Democrats say Martin only moved to withdraw his representation of Chrestman after initiating an internal review of the charges against his client, creating 'an appearance of impropriety.' Senate Democrats say there is also evidence that Martin communicated directly with Jan. 6 defendants who were not his clients after his appointment as interim U.S. attorney, including William Pope, who was charged with a felony and four misdemeanors related to the attack on the Capitol. They say that if Martin communicated directly with Pope, he 'created the appearance of impropriety because he may be called as a witness for the defendant in a matter involving the office he currently leads.' They argue that Martin has violated the D.C. Bar's prohibition on representing a client if the client may be adversely affected by the lawyer's responsibilities to or interests in a third party. 'Under this rule, Mr. Martin cannot effectively represent the United States in taking any investigative or prosecutorial steps against Mr. Padilla, including steps favorable to Mr. Padilla, in the same matter in which he defended and still represented Mr. Padilla,' they wrote. They say that Martin potentially violated the prohibition of any conduct that interferes with the administration of justice and that his representation of Padilla and Chrestman 'creates an appearance of impropriety in any review or prosecutorial steps related to his office's handling of obstruction charges against Jan. 6 defendants. And his alleged communications with Pope likely prohibits an attorney's involvement in a case in which they are likely to be a necessary witness, they argued. In addition, Democratic senators are raising alarm over what they say are the 'numerous extrajudicial statements' Martin has made threatening prosecution 'with the apparent intent of intimidating government employees and chilling the speech of private citizens.' They cite a Feb. 3 tweet and letter to Elon Musk, the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, threatening to 'pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people.' They also point to a Feb. 14 tweet threatening former special counsel Jack Smith, who handled two criminal cases against President Trump before he won the 2024 election. And they note a Feb. 19 announcement that the U.S. attorney's office would investigate and prosecute alleged threats to government officials, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) because of his March 2020 statement at a rally in front of the Supreme Court that conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would 'pay the price' for voting against abortion rights. Martin has since dropped plans to investigate Schumer after concluding that his statements did not present a 'true threat' that could be prosecuted. 'Mr. Martin's conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer; his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice Investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law,' the Democrats wrote. They asked Office of Disciplinary Counsel to initiate an investigation and take 'appropriate disciplinary proceedings,' and would appreciate 'prompt attention to this sensitive matter.'
