What makes for a bad rehearing petition and contempt sanctions?? Well, how about a petition in which counsel cites...
not a single statute or opinion and made no attempt to explain, distinguish, or otherwise reply to the cases and statutes relied upon by the trial court and this one. Instead he filed nine pages of text that more closely resembled a rant than a petition.
The court provided a chance for contrition, but the lawyer "doubled down" on insinuating that "political clout accounted" for the trial and appellate courts' rulings. Key bits from the opinion:
this would serve as a perfect exemplar in any law school class in which the instructor was attempting to illustrate the phrase “impugn[] the integrity of the court.”
This kind of over-the-top, anything-goes, devil-take-thehindmost rhetoric has to stop.
If you think the court is wrong, don’t hesitate to say so. Explain the error. Analyze the cases the court relied upon and delineate its mistake. Do so forcefully. Do so con brio; do so with zeal, with passion. We in the appellate courts will respect your efforts and understand your ardor. Sometimes we will agree with you. That’s why you file a petition for rehearing – because they are sometimes granted.
But don’t expect to get anywhere – except the reported decisions – with jeremiads about “society going down the tubes” and courts whose decisions are based not on a reading of the law but on their general corruption and openness to political influence.
We publish this decision as a cautionary tale. The timbre of our time has become unfortunately aggressive and disrespectful. Language addressed to opposing counsel and courts has lurched off the path of discourse and into the ditch of abuse. This isn’t who we are.
We are professionals. Like the clergy, like doctors, like scientists, we are members of a profession, and we have to conduct ourselves accordingly. Most of the profession understands this. The vast majority of lawyers know that professional speech must always be temperate and respectful and can never undermine confidence in the institution. Cases like this should instruct the few who don’t.
[The MetNews and Law360 also have now covered this: Attorney Hit With Criminal Contempt Over Calif. Courts 'Rant' In a tone reminiscent of a college lecture hall — or perhaps high school detention — a California appeals court held a Claremont attorney not just in contempt of one court, but apparently in contempt of the entire state court system.]
[The DJ's 6/16 story story is Lawyer held in contempt for implying justices were corrupt]
Posts
