Rush Limbaugh pain killer controversy on Hannity & Colmes tonight

Fox News Channel | January 26, 2004 | self

[Matchett-PI]

Rush just mentioned Free Republic on his radio show. He said that some people here "get it" when it comes to what's going on with the SAO and some don't. The media has been misrepresenting, and misreporting things and he and his attorney are taking steps today to set them straight.

He mentioned us in the context of talking about the news conference his attorney Roy Black is holding in the 2PM hour (most of the media is there, although it's not being covered live on the air), and the fact that Black will be appearing tonight on Hannity and Colmes.

[gitmo]

Thanks for the heads up.

[longtermmemmory]

FYI: It would be good for all to know which FL Bar Ethics rules we are
discussing.

When Roy is speaking of Ethics violations. This are the general rules that could apply here.
As an elected and public official the SA is held to a
higher standard of compliance.


Rules Regulating The Florida Bar


4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-4 TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS

RULE 4-4.4 RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person or knowingly use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

[my comment: This is relevant for the time when Rush was not being investigated. He was a third party then. This is pre-public pressure emails and telephone calls. Since the SA has obvious relationships with certain reporters, thier shopping of the pre-investigation story through colusion to elicit the public admission of adiction, publicity pressure to initiate the investigation, and public intimidation/disparagment of Rush would be a violation.]


Comment

Responsibility to a client requires a lawyer to subordinate the interests of others to those of the client, but that responsibility does not imply that a lawyer may disregard the rights of third persons. It is impractical to catalogue all such rights, but they include legal restrictions on methods of obtaining evidence from third persons.

=snip=

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-3 ADVOCATE

RULE 4-3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pre-trial rights such as a right to a preliminary hearing;


[my comment: before the enquirer story, Rush was unrepresented. No lawyer had placed his notice with the SA.]

(c) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.

Comment

A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations such as making a reasonable effort to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to and the procedure for obtaining counsel and has been given a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel so that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate. Florida has adopted the American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function. This is the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced in criminal prosecution and defense and should be consulted for further guidance. See also rule 4-3.3(d) governing ex parte proceedings, among which grand jury proceedings are included. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of these obligations or systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of rule 4-8.4.

Subdivision (b) does not apply to an accused appearing pro se with the approval of the tribunal, nor does it forbid the lawful questioning of a suspect who has knowingly waived the rights to counsel and silence.

The exception in subdivision (c) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate protective order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest.

=snip=

this is the good one

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-3 ADVOCATE

RULE 4-3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

(b) Statements of Third Parties. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

Comment

It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy


=end snip=

If the SA TOLD THE REPORTER to ask for the letters via public request that would violate Florida Bar Ethics rule 4-36(a).

Even if the Chief claims innocence. The lawyer in charge CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE for the acts of lawyers under him/her. This is not just 4-3.6(b)

If the SA orchestrated the release of the Cline's story to Enquirer. (made sure the had the right immunity deal to ensure Rush had to be embarrassed into a confession) this would be a violation of Rule 4-4.4 because at that time Rush was a third person and openly not part of an investigation.

This is most assuredly now a FL Bar matter. This SA is out of control. He is humiliating the profession. (not that it would be hard to do.) But even in the Bar's eyes, this guy is obviously manipulating the prosecutor's office only for political gain and. This would be dramatically true and an ethics violation if they set up the enquirer story to get a confession out of Rush when he was unrepresented.
It is time to file a formal bar complaint.

BTW, since the bar disciplinary proceedings are not court proceedings proceedings per se, the rules or evidence are looser. The SA also has far far more limited attorney client priviledge.

[longtermmemmory]

Thanks for the heads up.

[snopercod]

Thanks for posting that. I don't have any feel for how often ethical rules are actually enforced in the legal profession.

In other professions...say psychology...ethical rules are mostly a shield designed to protect the psychologists, and are never enforced.

[longtermmemmory]

In FL they are very much enforced.

ANYONE, freepers included, can file a formal complaint with the FL Bar. The bar then conducts a preliminary investigation. This investigation is not public record. If the attorney finds enough information there, the file is turned over to an ethics committee of volunteer lawyers and non-laywers who review the file. (I believe 12) If the committed votes that probable cause of a violation exits, then a formal file is opened and the investigation is made public. A Judge in a jurisdiction OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the accused attorney is appointed. These judges are volunteers who hear these cases.

Unsigned complaints are not taken seriously. The complaints are viewed narrowly. Thus a complaint has to be as specific and detailed in order to pass muster at the two ground levels.

Serving on a ethics committee is a very rewarding service an attorney can do for the profession. (all attorneys should offer to do this once in their lives.)

Once a complaint is recieved. Victim cooperation is irrelevant. The Bar takes all legitimate complaints to the conclusion. The Bar can expand or narrow an investigation at their discretion. The Bar has retired FBI agents as investigators.

[longtermmemmory]

Forgot to add, the Bar Ethics are enforced under the FL Supreme court. Very few cases get to them. Most cases are resolved long before the even reach their radar.

The FL Dept of Professional Regulation does not regulate the legal profession.

The FL bar is mandated to investigate all complaints. (signed or just brought to the bar's attention.)

The FL Bar can intitiate an investigation on their own. The do automatically when a lawyer is arrested.

IRONICALLY, if a lawyer gets into trouble with drugs, the bar has their own IN HOUSE drug treatment diversion program. Lawyers with legitimate problems are able to be diverted to treatment instead of discipline.

[snopercod]

Does one need "standing" to file an ethical complaint?

[snopercod]

I'll ask you the same question I posed on the other thread.

Isn't this case starting to sound like The Night of January 16th?

[longtermmemmory]

no, only knowlege.

You have to have some meat to give to the FL Bar Investigating attorney.

Just stating something is wrong will not cut it.

Citing rules helps, giving facts helps more.

The FL Bar is short staffed so there is not a whole lot of time to devote to any particular matter. Not mean just the way it is.

The complaintaint will be asked to provide follow-up info if there is more after the attorney files their answer. I don't know the time limits, I think its 10 days. This is not a court so the rules are far less strict.

It gets "fun" at the committee level.

[blackie]

Good report ~ you got it right ~ Rush Is The Man!

[GregB]

Thats why I love listening to Sean on his talk show which airs here in Western a on 104.7 FM out of the Burg.