ILNews

1-year suspension recommended for criticizing judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis attorney and blogger Paul K. Ogden should be suspended from the bar for a year without automatic reinstatement for private communications criticizing a judge, according to the Indiana Disciplinary Commission.

The commission recommended to the Indiana Supreme Court that Ogden receive the sanction for emails that he sent to another attorney accusing Hendricks Superior Judge David Coleman of mishandling an estate case in which Ogden represented an heir. Coleman was removed from the case under a lazy judge motion Ogden filed, and Ogden claimed the judge made numerous mistakes handling the years-long case.
 

Paul Ogden Ogden

Ogden’s brief in reply says his speech was private and protected and there should be no sanctions.

At the heart of the complaint against Ogden is an email he sent to opposing counsel Steve Harris of Mooresville, who represented the estate of Robert P. Carr that was administered by Carr’s son, Robert Carr Jr. Ogden represented another heir in the matter.

Among other things, Ogden said in the email that Coleman “should be turned in to the disciplinary commission for how he handled this case.”

In the commission’s tender of its proposed hearing officer’s findings of facts, it recommends that hearing officer Robert W. York find that he “cannot stress enough the conclusion that (Ogden) has a profound lack of both insight into his own conduct and lack of respect for those who disagree with him in any way.”

The commission argues aggravators for Ogden include that he believes he is “superior to the courts and the law” and that his criticism of Coleman was “filled with inaccurate claims and slanderous innuendo.”

The year suspension is appropriate, according to the commission, based on “the conduct involved, the lack of insight, the failure not only to acknowledge any wrongdoing, but the inability to even consider his own misconduct, while at the same time proclaiming misconduct on the part of everyone else associated with this matter, the attacks on the integrity of the Commission and the discipline process and his lack of remorse.”

Ogden has responded to the charge that he violated Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2 by asserting his speech was private and protected by the First Amendment.

“Rule 8.2 certainly does not proscribe attorneys from expressing opinions about judges so Ogden’s general opinion about Judge Coleman’s mishandling of the estate and that the judicial discipline body should look into it, is clearly not sanctionable under a rule that requires a false statement of fact,” Ogden’s attorney Adam Lenkowsky asserted in response to the commission’s findings and conclusions of law.

The Indiana Supreme Court will determine what sanction, if any, Ogden receives. Findings of fact and conclusions of law from the commission and Ogden were filed with the court Sept. 23.

Coleman testified at Ogden’s hearing in July, telling York, “I don’t know of anything I did wrong on this case.”

While Ogden stands by his criticism of Coleman with bullet-point examples of what he claims are mistakes the judge made in handling the Carr estate, the commission claims Ogden “had no evidence and has admitted that he has no evidence of any ethical misconduct by Judge Coleman. Thus, the statement that he should be brought up on discipline charges was a complete fabrication,” the commission brief says.

Coleman also said Ogden could have forgone any disciplinary action had he simply apologized for his statements when Coleman sent him a letter about the email, but Ogden refused. That refusal, the commission asserts, was “particularly egregious, we think.”

“This lack of insight into (Ogden’s) own conduct is the most serious issue presented to the court,” the commission asserts.

In response, Ogden argues that he had no duty to apologize and doing so could have compromised a potential appeal, among other things. He also says the exchanges only became public when the commission released them. He claims the record shows multiple problems with Coleman’s handling of the case.

Rule 8.2, Ogden claims, “is designed to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, not shield judges from criticism.” His response argues that application of the rule is “limited to scenarios where a lawyer’s comments actually run the risk of interfering with the administration of justice.” He argues Coleman testified that wasn’t the case here.

“Ogden’s comments were private and occurred after the judge who was subject of criticism had been removed from the case,” his response says.

“Rule 8.2(a) does not apply to a private email sent to a person involved in the same court proceeding or a letter in response to a judge demanding an apology,” Ogden’s brief argues. Ogden also claims that the rule requires application of the actual malice standard.

The commission also filed a brief on its interpretation of First Amendment protections and Rule 8.2.

“The Commission does not dispute that lawyers retain First Amendment rights,” it says. “However, the Commission contends that when a lawyer makes a statement concerning the [lack] of integrity or qualifications of a judge that he knows to be false, or makes such statements without regard to whether they are true or false, essentially, without any credible evidence to support it, there is no constitutional protection.”

Meanwhile, Ogden also is accused violating Rule 8.4(d) for making an ex parte communication by sending a letter to Marion Superior judges concerning a Supreme Court decision regarding disposition of assets seized in civil forfeiture cases.

Ogden said he had no matters before judges who received the letter and that he also sent copies not just to the judges, but to “the very parties who are involved in the issue.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT