A lawyer repeatedly sanctioned in federal court was disbarred as a result in state court. In re Fagan, 869 N.Y.S.2d 417, 420-21 (1st Dept. December 11, 2008):

On May 14, 2008, the Hearing Panel issued its report concluding that respondent's false submissions to the court and "knowing misrepresentations" were sufficiently serious when coupled with the other violations found by this Court, to warrant disbarment. The Panel found there to be significant aggravating factors including respondent's "pattern" of misconduct, his failure to pay sanctions imposed by Judge Kram, his lack of contrition and disruptive and dilatory conduct before the Panel. It found his "sparse" mitigation evidence "insufficient to overcome the seriousness of his violations and the overwhelming aggravating evidence." It noted that respondent's testimony that his clients would suffer if he were sanctioned because no one would take over his victims' rights cases was unpersuasive. The Panel noted in the report that out of the four cases he was working on at the time, he had been disqualified as counsel from one of them and in another, the AHVRAM matter, the action had been dismissed.

False billing of expenses to a client resulted in a nine month suspension in South Carolina for misrepresentation and fraud. In re Gray, 26602 (S.C. February 17, 2009).

At the Winter ABA meeting in Boston, the House of Delegates adopted a revised Rule 1.10, a rule change that was long debated. This rule permits the screening of a lawyer who moves laterally from one private law firm to another, so that conflicts of interest that apply to the moving lawyer under Model Rule 1.9 (“Duties to Former Clients”) are not imputed to all the other lawyers in the new law firm.

It will, of course, take years for the states to adopt the changes.

Defendant cannot assault his lawyer during trial and then necessarily successfully contend the lawyer was ineffective. The lawyer's actions showed that he was being effective. Berry v. State, 03-08-00031-CR (Tex. App.--Austin February 4, 2009):

In his second issue on appeal, Berry argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase because a conflict of interest arose when the State presented evidence of Berry's assault on counsel. This evidence consisted of a video recording of the assault, as well as testimony from a sheriff's deputy who witnessed the incident. Berry takes the position that counsel's status as the victim of an extraneous offense created an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected counsel's performance.

Upon learning that the State intended to offer evidence of the assault as an extraneous offense, defense counsel immediately objected, emphasizing that he did not wish to file assault charges against Berry, that he had not received prior notice that such evidence would be introduced, and that "it's of such a highly prejudicial nature and creates such a paradox of problems for me to effectively represent him that I think it would be improper to present that to the jury." Counsel objected again at the time the video was offered as evidence, stating, "I object on the basis of relevance. Also, it's not an accurate recording because it doesn't have the sound and it also doesn't--it's one of those that doesn't show all the movements. It's just a time lapse." Each of these objections was overruled. In cross-examining the deputy who witnessed the assault, counsel confirmed that he had not required medical attention and had informed the deputy that he did not wish to press charges. Finally, in his closing statement, counsel suggested that the assault was an indicator of "serious mental health issues," which should be taken into consideration in assessing punishment.

While claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are usually analyzed under the Strickland standard, which requires the appellant to establish that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984), a lower standard applies when the claim of ineffective assistance is based on an alleged conflict of interest. Acosta, 233 S.W.3d at 352-53. In order to prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim based on a conflict of interest, the appellant must show that counsel "actively represented conflicting interests" and that counsel's performance at trial was "adversely affected" by the conflict. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 349-50.

In light of this standard, we must first address whether trial counsel actively represented conflicting interests in the punishment phase of trial. Berry argues that counsel was conflicted by his own self-interest as a victim of an extraneous offense, but fails to explain how counsel, who stated on the record that he did not wish to press charges, could personally benefit from admission of the assault evidence. Therefore, it is not readily apparent how counsel's self-interest conflicted with his representation of Berry. The record, far from indicating that counsel actively represented his own self-interest, reflects that counsel consistently represented Berry's interests by objecting to evidence of the assault and attempting to minimize its effect on the jury, as described above. Because Berry has not established that his trial counsel actively represented his own self-interest during the punishment phase of trial, his ineffective-assistance claim fails. See Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 249. Berry's second issue on appeal is overruled.

See Appellate Court Knocks Out Appeal of Defendant Who Punched Counsel from the Texas Lawyer.

An Austin TX area criminal defense lawyer was convicted of teaming up with drug dealers to tell them who were snitches. See Austin American-Statesman's Testimony: Defense lawyer teamed with drug dealers, posted Friday night:

Noe Perez said he was skeptical when a woman who sold drugs for him brought then-Austin criminal defense lawyer Bruce Garrison to a South Austin motel room in 2006.

But Perez, a former drug kingpin who is serving life in prison, testified at a sentencing hearing for Garrison this week that, after Garrison sparked up a methamphetamine pipe, the two struck a deal.

In exchange for drugs, Perez said, Garrison would give Perez information on the arrests of Perez's associates and whether they were cooperating with the police.

Garrison has pleaded guilty to charges that he possessed drugs and forged judges' signatures on court documents, but much of the hearing testimony was about allegations that he disseminated information about clients cooperating with police, a practice lawyers said could have led to violent retribution.

Baton Rouge criminal defense attorney Chiquita Patrece Tate was found murdered in her downtown office at 6 a.m. Friday morning. Baton Rouge attorney found dead in her office. She had not come home from work that night before. She was at work preparing for a jury trial starting Monday.

ABAJournal.com post here.

Even criminal trials are being postposed in Massachuetts due to state budget cuts from lack of courtroom security. See Trial Court seeks to restore funds.

I lost an appeal of a Fourth Amendment issue in a federal appeals court about three months ago. I filed a motion for bail pending a writ of cert which was denied on February 8th. He was to surrender February 16th at Texarkana FCI. Pretrial services called today to say that he had not surrendered as scheduled. They went to his apartment last night and found him dead from a self-inflicted shotgun blast. I last talked to him Wednesday about 2 p.m. He was supposed to call me Friday and didn't.

This client I really liked, and he was a genuinely nice guy. I told him I'd be seeing him in Texarkana within a week of his arrival. I was going late this week.

The State of Colorado has moved to suspend Francis M. Pignatelli, previously discussed here on Jan. 26. Today's Office of Attorney Regulation press release:

DENVER – The Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation today announced that it has filed a petition to immediately suspend Colorado lawyer Francis (Frank) M. Pignatelli from the practice of law. The petition is now pending before Supreme Court Presiding Disciplinary Judge William Lucero.

The petition alleges that Mr. Pignatelli committed fraud when applying to the Colorado Bar in 2006. It is alleged that Mr. Pignatelli failed to disclose that he was subject of a federal criminal investigation in Ohio and that the federal authorities had informed him that they had sufficient information to charge him with federal crimes. Further, that Mr. Pignatelli had agreed to act as a confidential informant against individuals who believed that they had an attorney-client relationship with him.

Mr. Pignatelli will be served with the petition and if a show cause order is issued by Judge Lucero he will have 10 days within which to respond.

The Office of Attorney Regulation is proceeding with attorney discipline charges related to the petition.

Questions may be directed to Supreme Court Regulation Counsel John S. Gleason at 303-866-6444.

Rob McCallum
Public Information Officer
State Court Administrator's Office
(303) 837-3633