Missouri lawyer, James T. Madison, suspended for multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-supreme-court/1127624.html

The issues involved in this disciplinary action are;
1. Mr. Madison’s conduct went beyond the standards in that he made reckless statements regarding the qualifications and integrity of a judge.
2. Resisted a judge’s ruling beyond that necessary to preserve a claim for appeal.
3. Disrupted the court and acted in a manner prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Also that Mr. Madison claimed his speech and conduct was not protected as a matter of law, but because it was true and was justified.
The DHP (disciplinary hearing panel) of the OCDC recommended that Mr. Madison be suspended from the practice of law with no leave to apply for reinstatement for 12 months and that his reinstatement be conditioned on his agreement to undergo a psychological evaluation and complete anger management or other programs or therapies recommended as part of that evaluation. Mr. Madison appealed this ruling.
This case was referred to the Missouri Supreme Court on May 5, 2009. The DHP found that Mr. Madison’s conduct violated the following rules; Rule 4-3.5(d), Rule 4-8.2(a) and Rule 4-8.4(d). Rule 4-3.5(d) states “a lawyer shall not …engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal”. Rule 4-8.2 (a) states “a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsify concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office”. Rule 4-8.4 (d) states “it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to;…engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”.
In the first issue Mr. Madison represented a plaintiff in a personal injury case filed in September, 2002. The judge that was assigned the case, because of a family situation, had to continue the case at another time. Because the judge’s staff did not give the reason behind the continuance to Mr. Madison, he responded with several letters to the judge, two of which were sent after she recused herself from hearing the case. The wording in these letters is what is at issue in the first violation. Mr. Madison made statements in these letters accusing the judge of racism, drunk with power, doubts concerning fitness to preside, appearance of impropriety, an “evil” network, and that people would know her and the 16th Circuit court for an act of infamy.
The second and third issues occurred on March 16, 2005 while Mr. Madison was in court representing a landlord seeking back rent and possession of an apartment. Mr. Madison did not bring a witness for the landlord, but the tenant showed up. The judge told Mr. Madison and the tenant to leave the court room and go into the hall and try to settle the matter. When the judge resumed the case, he made it clear to Mr. Madison that he would need a witness to make his case because of the tenant’s denial of the debt, he also offered future dates to hear the case. Mr. Madison did not accept the judge’s dates, and insisted on completing the trial that day. After personally questioning the tenant, the judge made a ruling excusing all the rent except the last month. He did not allow Mr. Madison a chance at cross-examination. At this point Mr. Madison started arguing with the judge. Witnesses claimed Mr. Madison’s behavior as disruptive and disrespectful and his attitude arrogant. Mr. Madison sent a letter to the judge. He accused the judge of misconduct and unethical behavior, but did not file a complaint with the commission or appeal the judge’s decision in his case.
In the Supreme Court opinion they cited Belz, 258 S.W.3d at 39 and Crews, 159 S.W.3d at 360-61 for providing guidance in regard to the appropriate discipline for the violations committed by Mr. Madison. They upheld the verdict of the DPH, finding Mr. Madison in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Because of Mr. Madison’s conduct during the investigation and interviews of the panel conducted by the Supreme Court, they found that a reprimand was insufficient. The Supreme Court suspended Mr. Madison indefinitely with no leave to reapply for six months. Reinstatement was conditional on meeting the requirements set out in the court’s ruling. Mr. Madison was required to show he had undergone a psychological evaluation and completed anger management or other programs or therapies recommended as a part of that evaluation, and that he also attended the ethics school conducted by OCDC.