In Re Reines, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21107 (Fed. Cir.Nov. 5, 2014)
On November 5, 2014, the US Court of Appeals publicly reprimanded a California lawyer for disseminating to clients and prospective clients an email he received from a Judge.
The lawyer received a private e-mail from a Chief Judge.
This is an extract of the letter:
Ed,
… one of my female colleagues interrupted and addressed herself to me. She said that she was vastly impressed with the advocacy of “my friend, Ed.” She said that you had handled two very complex cases, back to back. … You were alone and IMPRESSIVE in every way. …. She said that she was really impressed with your performance. Two of my other colleagues immediately echoed her enthusiasm over your performance.
I, of course, pointed out that I had taught you everything you know in our recent class at Berkeley together . . . I added the little enhancement that you can do the same thing with almost any topic of policy: mastering the facts and law without the slightest hesitation or pause!
In sum, I was really proud to be your friend today! You bring great credit on yourself and all associated with you!
And actually I not only do not mind, but encourage you to let others see this message.
Your friend for life, rrr
The lawyer circulated the e-mail to clients and prospective clients. The Court of Appeals accused the lawyer of violating ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e) by stating an ability to influence a government official. The lawyer denied accusations and responded that his conduct was protected under the First Amendment.
In an en banc ruling the Court publicly reprimanded the lawyer holding that:
“While the dissemination of complimentary comments by a judge contained in a public document would not itself constitute a violation of Model Rule 8.4(e), we conclude respondent’s actions violated the rule. First, the email both explicitly describes and implies a special relationship between respondent and then-Chief Judge Rader…Second, recipients of the email also viewed it as suggesting the existence of a special relationship between respondent and then-Chief Judge Rader and perhaps other judges of the court… Third, the transmission of the email did more than suggest that respondent should be retained because of his superior advocacy skills. It suggested that his special relationship with the court should be taken into account…Forth, in sending the email to clients and prospective clients, respondent sought to directly influence their decisions about retaining counsel…Finally, the email itself and respondent’s comments accompanying the sending of the email suggested that Federal Circuit judges would look favorably on the retention of respondent”.
Relevant Law: ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e)
The full text is available on http://www.cafc…
For more information contact Nathan M. Crystal
Follow us on& Like us on