U.S. Judges Unveil New Disciplinary Rules for Lawyers

Los Angeles’ federal judges announced new disciplinary rules Thursday for lawyers who practice in their courtrooms, but questions arose over whether attorneys can be punished for making disparaging remarks about the jurists.

The judges, who preside in the largest federal court district in the nation, provoked a storm of dissent within the legal community in January when they circulated a proposal that called for punishing lawyers who “impugn the character or integrity of any judicial officer.”

Violators would have been subject to discipline that included fines, suspensions or disbarment.

The rules announced Thursday made no direct mention of the hotly disputed proposal.

Instead, the judges decided that lawyers must comply with the standards of conduct set out by the State Bar. Those regulations prohibit lawyers from making out-of-court statements that could materially prejudice a judicial proceeding.

The original proposal would have punished lawyers for derogatory remarks unrelated to pending cases.

“Under that notion, table talk between two professional colleagues could have resulted in punishment,” said Douglas E. Mirell, a veteran civil liberties lawyer.

Mirell, who co-authored a lengthy opposition to the rule change earlier this year, said it appeared as if the judges had backed down.

But Stephen Yagman, who has been involved in several disciplinary scrapes with the federal court, said the judges had found a way to disguise the “gag rule.”

Although the new rules are pegged to the State Bar regulations, they also state that model guidelines of the American Bar Assn. “may be considered as guidance.”

Those guidelines include a section that says a lawyer should not make any statement with reckless disregard for the truth about a judge’s integrity or qualifications.

“The appropriate way to describe what they have done is sneaky,” said Yagman, who specializes in police abuse cases. “They’ve incorporated the original discredited proposal by reference to the ABA guidelines. In the legal world it’s known as sharp practice.”

Some members of the legal community have contended that the original proposal, advanced by a small group of judges, was intended to silence Yagman.

After U.S. District Judge Manuel Real fined him $250,000 for his courtroom behavior in 1984, Yagman told a newspaper that the judge suffered from “mental disorders.” The fine was overturned by an appeals court.

In 1994, the Venice-based lawyer was suspended from practicing in the Los Angeles federal court after he called U.S. District Judge William D. Keller anti-Semitic, dishonest, a bully and one of the worst judges in the country.

But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and ordered the suspension lifted. Yagman afterward apologized for his remarks about Keller.

Yagman did have a few positive comments about the new disciplinary rules, which take effect Aug. 17.

A standing committee of 12 attorneys, as opposed to judges, will be chosen by the chief judge to review allegations of improper behavior by a lawyer.

If the committee decides that discipline should not be imposed, the case will be considered closed. If discipline is found to be warranted, punishment will be determined by a three-judge panel selected at random. A judge who originated a complaint against a lawyer would be barred from participating.