Lawyer’s blog posts about ‘sleazy world of probate’ bring ethics complaint

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Home

News

Topics

Magazine

numbers

Rebels

Podcast

Blawgs

Stay Connected

Home

News

Lawyer’s blog posts about ‘sleazy world of probate’ bring ethics complaint

Legal Ethics

Lawyer’s blog posts about ‘sleazy world of probate’ bring ethics complaint

Posted Feb 4, 2013 7:20 AM CST

By Debra Cassens Weiss



Email

Print

Reprints

Share

Corrected: A patent and trademark lawyer who blogged about alleged corruption in Chicago’s "sleazy world of probate" is facing an ethics complaint that accuses her of undermining the administration of justice.

Chicago lawyer Joanne Denison is accused of knowing that her statements were false or made in reckless disregard of the truth, the National Law Journal reports. The Legal Profession Blog links to the complaint.

Denison began blogging after a judge refused her application to represent a client who was seeking appointment as guardian for her mother. The client's sister was later appointed guardian.

The court had disqualified Denison because she had notarized signatures for the client and the client's mother on a document giving the client her mother’s interest in a lawsuit. The court had found that the mother may have been suffering from dementia at the time, the ethics complaint said.

According to the complaint, Denison’s blog posts had claimed impropriety and financial exploitation in the case. Among other things, her blog claimed "garden variety theft, embezzlement, malpractice and malfeasance by attorneys and the court."

Denison had published a disclaimer. "Sorry, but portions of this blog have to be entertaining so we can get the word out," she wrote. "There is most certainly a great deal of (stinging) truth in it."

Denison told the NLJ she has no plans to take down her blog. "Why would I shut up when there's corruption going on in the courts?" she said.

Corrected on Feb. 5 to say Denison has no plans to take down her blog.

42673

Related Topics

Internet Law, Legal Ethics, Trusts & Estates

Comments

20

1.

Pushkin

Feb 4, 2013 9:05 AM CST

"Denison told the NLJ she plans to take down her blog. "Why would I shut up when there’s corruption going on in the courts?" she said."

Should this read, "Denison told the NLJ she [has no] plans to take down her blog."? That would seem to fit better with the second sentence.

2.

Peter C. Lomtevas

Feb 4, 2013 6:09 PM CST

It’s a method to muzzle the lawyer. However, I would argue that I do not need to prove impropriety. I only need to show an appearance of impropriety and that’s it. The system must be investigated and wrongdoers punished.

3.

joanne denison

Feb 6, 2013 9:53 PM CST

Thank you for your post! How great is that. Actually, lawyers know that WE HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS and we can post whatever we want—as long as it’s the truth or substantially the truth.

We don’t in fact have to prove ANYTHING. The reality is, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment is so broad that unless i write something that is patently false or untrue, I have to be left alone. The standard is "true or substantially true" and my opponent must prove that anything I say is false.

So thank you for posting this and letting me explain how wonderful the First Amendment is to the US Constitution. In Illinois we also have Article 1 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and we have the Citizen’s Participation Act, 750 ILSC 110 that protects any type of speech, as long as it is not completely made up or completely false.

How wonderful is that?

Write me at joanne@denisonlaw.com if you have any questions.

4.

Antonio Quinlan

Feb 6, 2013 11:38 PM CST

This seems to be going on all over the country and it’s a scam for lawyers and judges to profit and be in control. Basically, as my grandfather ranted and raved - PURE FASCISM. Now, are the lawyers and people involved here out for profit or to protect America and the Consitution?

5.

Slick

Feb 7, 2013 4:21 AM CST

Nastiest thing in the Courthouse…...probate. It’s all about the money isn’t it?

6.

Antonio Quinlan

Feb 7, 2013 4:52 AM CST

How about this? Challenge every lawyer to do the right thing, make a name for themselves, and make history by actually defending an individual’s Constitutional rights ignoring the politics and the few that make the news. Any lawyer or greedy person can make millions or billions merely fighting for the right thing protecting the individual and Constitution. Instead the legal profession chooses the slum lord path of "ambulance chasing" in most every circumstance.

7.

Name Witheld Temporarily

Feb 27, 2013 3:22 AM CST

You think your state is bad? Wait ‘til I finish this case in NY. You have no idea what evil is until you get into a guardianship case in NY.

8.

Tom

Feb 27, 2013 7:56 AM CST

Bar regulators still having trouble with the First Amendment, I see . . .

9.

Ham Solo

Feb 27, 2013 8:17 AM CST

It’s a sticky business mostly because bar associations have gotten so cozy with the courts that they’re now quasi-governmental organizations. When the state bar tells you to shut up, is it the government talking?

10.

Chet

Feb 27, 2013 9:06 AM CST

Some lawyers, judges and courts…sleazy? Who knew? Glad to see legal pros comments. I feel better now.

11.

Posie

Feb 27, 2013 9:57 AM CST

for a ussc case on a lawyer’s speech impugning the judiciary’s integrity, see garrison v. louisiana, 379 us 64 (1964) (inefficient, lazy, sympathetic to racketeering influences, etc.). in ethics cases, state supreme courts either ignore garrison or "distinguish" it based on the supposed "compelling" interest in maintaining the public’s confidence in the judiciary’s integrity.

isn’t that considerate of the judiciary to silence its most informed critics, in order to "protect" society from this dangerous idea? THANK YOU, judiciary!

for an article thoroughly refuting the rationales of these state court opinions, see margaret tarkington, the truth be damned: the first amendment, attorney speech and judicial reputation (2009).

12.

98451358

Feb 27, 2013 12:38 PM CST

It’s a shame that free speech doesn’t exist anymore.

13.

Ike Aruti, Esq

Feb 27, 2013 1:30 PM CST

I have no familiarity with the court system in IL, however, if is anything like New York, I offer the following:

I remember NY Senate Judiciary and Ethics Committee hearings in 2009. The subject was public dissatisfaction with the disciplinary systems in our profession, which operate in secrecy. Numerous credible witnesses gave testimony about unaddressed abuses in our system, probate being one of the more memorable issues. The statistics were beyond shocking, they were an insult to the collective intelligence of the public, IMHO. Consider the contention that more than 85% of the complaints to the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct to be facially without merit. (see §44(1) of the Judiciary Law.)

Continued hearings and investigations were promised, but have not yet materialized. I do not know if this is in any way related to the admission of a conflict of interest by the presiding Senate Chairman John Sampson. Is this bad faith on the part of our government, or am I just impatient? Should I refrain from stating how things appear to a reasonable observer, or be called upon to defend myself?

Speech critical of government has the highest level of protection by our constitution. Prohibiting statements by attorneys which disparage the integrity of our court system seems an illegitimate limitation of our most fundamental rights. This is particularly the case where there has been a lack of good faith by government in addressing malfunctioning and misconduct in our courts. Critical speech should be expected, if not worse….

@5 Slick… I beg to differ. Family Court is the nastiest thing in the courthouse.

But then again, I could be wrong.

14.

tim17

Feb 27, 2013 1:45 PM CST

Is there a Chicago lawyer who doesn’t think the system is sleazy? Give me a break.

15.

Posie

Feb 27, 2013 1:58 PM CST

@12 freedom of speech actually does exist. it exists for people who want to picket outside a soldier’s funeral, with signs reading "god hates fags." it exists for people who want to lie about receiving the congressional medal of honor, and for people who burn the american flag.

however, it does not exist for lawyers who sincerely criticize judges, if the judge can convince the local bar that the statement was "false." the judiciary’s self-serving exception to core first amendment speech is disgraceful, embarrassing, and terrifying.

16.

Realist

Feb 27, 2013 5:54 PM CST

"Facing an ethics complaint" is a far cry of being guilty of any ethical violation, which has not been proven. Attack the whistleblower is a time-worn tactic of those whose covers are blown.

17.

NaziCourtsofAmerica

Feb 27, 2013 7:54 PM CST

And to think the Nazis had a monopoly on "show trials", quashing of truth, corruption, extortion, and murder happening in their court systems!

18.

Name Withheld Temporarily

Feb 27, 2013 7:56 PM CST

@17:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law

:-)

19.

DKK

Feb 28, 2013 1:30 PM CST

@15, you nailed it.

Joanne, while NY -especially Kings County—gives IL a real run for the money on sleaze, most of my fellow attorneys and I believe that Cook County IL is the most corrupt venue in the country. Thanks for standing up to the bullies.

20.

joanne denison, chicago

Feb 28, 2013 1:41 PM CST

If anyone is interested, I have posted an attorneys and blogs survey on the blog and so far, it is about 98% that attorneys should not have their blogs censored by the ARDC when blogging about corruption and they should be protected by whistleblower laws, like anyone else.

you can go to www.marygsykes.com and take the one minute, 4 click survey and post comments on it. It will be printed out and sent to the ARDC.after 200 responses. Thanks

PS—On Godwin’s law, that only applies to the concept that after a period of time, even the most mundane blogs eventually degenerate at the end to some analogy concerning the Nazis. It does not actually apply to instances regarding suppression of civil rights, human rights, life and liberty, which is what happens when the Illinois Probate courts do not deliver a summons and complaint 14 days in advance of a hearing for a petition for guardianship. In Illinois, for the court to take jurisdiction, the petitioner must serve 14 day advance notice of the time, date and place of hearing to all next of kin, defined basically as all adult siblings, children and parents. I found a disturbing number of Illinois probate cases where this was not done, the Illinois Probate courts were operating without jurisdiction for 2 to 3 years or more, and yet the GAL’s and court refuse to dismiss sua sponte. They fight a relative for bringing this to the court’s attention. Due to the depravation of human and civil rights in a court of alleged justice, I do not believe Godwin’s law applies here.

Ken Ditkowsky

http://www.ditkowskylawoffice.com/