In this 2/8 published opinion
here (from last Friday), you have get to page 52 for the ethics lesson:
We must address the regrettable briefing submitted by Mother’s appellate counsel. Mother’s appellate briefing is little more than a screed against the juvenile court, imbuing almost its every word or action with a malevolent intent that is not supported by the record. Mother’s appellate counsel postulates a moustache-twirling villain of a juvenile court that “prejudged the permanency with a focus on adoption, never entertaining another permanent plan,” resolved from its very first hearing in the case to ensure M.V. was adopted by the paternal grandparents, and “announced” its plan “long before the permanency hearing.”
These overheated accusations “cannot be fairly characterized as acts of zealous advocacy” (Martinez v. O’Hara (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 853, 857) in an effort to challenge the court’s order. Instead, Mother’s appellate briefs repeatedly accuse the juvenile court of intentionally refusing to follow and apply the law in a deliberate, long-term plan to manipulate the parties and violate their rights to achieve its preconceived goal. As discussed above, there is no support in the record for such serious charges. When made without evidentiary support, accusations that a judicial officer intentionally refused to follow and apply the law constitute reportable misconduct. (Id. at pp. 857–858.)
Additionally, Mother’s appellate counsel’s language is unprofessional and intemperate. Attorneys have a duty to “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (b).) “ ‘[I]t is vital to the integrity of our adversary legal process that attorneys strive to maintain the highest standards of ethics, civility, and professionalism in the practice of law.’ ” (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 412.) With this contemptuous tirade, counsel’s language “lurched off the path of discourse and into the ditch of abuse.” (In re Mahoney (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 376, 381.)
“This kind of over-the-top, anything-goes, devil-take-the hindmost 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. . . . [¶] But don’t expect to get anywhere—except the reported decisions—with jeremiads.” (Id. at p. 380.)
We will forward a copy of this opinion to the California Appellate Project—which oversees the work of appointed appellate counsel—for whatever action it deems appropriate.
Posts
