The Supreme Court of Virginia recentlyupheld a three-year suspension of attorney Phillip Leiser for violating professional conduct rules by making unsupported attacks on judges in court filings.
Leiser argued that Rule 8.2, which prohibits false or reckless statements about judges’ integrity, violates the First Amendment and that he was denied due process. The court rejected those claims, ruling that the rule is constitutional and closely follows the standard previously established.
Courts have consistently upheld the principle that lawyers’ right of free speech is circumscribed, especially when the lawyer appears before a court or files pleadings and motions in court. Bottom line: Criticize the decision or opinion if there is a basis for it, not the judge.
The court found that Leiser’s repeated criticism of judges went beyond legitimate legal criticism and amounted to baseless attacks on judicial integrity. It also ruled that a specific judge does not need to be named for a Rule 8.2 violation to occur. However, Leiser plans to seek further review, potentially appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Of Counsel attorney and former Virginia State Bar Ethics Counsel Jim McCauley was consulted for a quote in the writing of the Virginia Lawyers Weekly article on this recent ruling.
