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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT