2nd Circuit: Lawyers Have Standing to Challenge Bar Rule That Limits Comments on Transgender and Religious Subject Matter

In Cerame v. Slack, (2d Cir., Dec. 9, 2024), the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Connecticut lawyers have standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to a state Rule of Professional Conduct which prohibits lawyers from engaging in harassing or discriminatory conduct against members of various protected classes in the practice of law. It bars harassment or discrimination on the basis of  race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status. Commentary to the Rule defines discrimination as including harmful verbal conduct directed at an individual that manifests bias or prejudice. The attorneys allege that they often speak out on legal blogs, in articles and legal seminars in ways that could be construed as personally derogatory.  According to the court:

Moynahan and Cerame ... allege... that “[t]here are numerous examples of speech” fully protected by the First Amendment that members of the Connecticut bar will be reluctant to engage in, given the fear of a misconduct complaint...."  These include using “the pronoun associated with a transgender individual’s biological sex when addressing that individual”; using the term “‘gender preference’ rather than ‘gender orientation’”;  ... and publishing cartoons that “satiri[ze] or mock[]” “a religious deity”..... 

Appellees argue that the commentary to Rule 8.4, providing that an attorney “does not violate paragraph (7) when the conduct in question is protected under the first amendment to the United States constitution,”  ...“unambiguously shows that the Rule does not proscribe protected speech”....

Although the First Amendment carve-out may make it more likely that the SGC will conclude that some speech that would otherwise fall within the text of Rule 8.4(7) is not in fact proscribed, the carve-out is not enough, on its own, to render Appellants’ fear of a misconduct complaint and its professional repercussions “imaginary or wholly speculative” for Article III purposes...

At this stage in the proceedings, Appellants have alleged plausibly that they intend to engage in speech proscribed, at least arguably, by a recently enacted, focused regulation.  This gives rise to a credible threat of enforcement.

Reuters reports on the decision.

Court Strongly Criticizes Performance of Counsel for The Satanic Temple

In March 2021, The Satanic Temple and one of its members filed suit in a Texas federal district court challenging Texas' requirement that a woman have a sonogram prior to an abortion. The complaint alleged that in light of the Satanic Temple's Satanic Abortion Ritual, the Texas requirement violated plaintiffs' free exercise, substantive due process and equal protection rights. (See prior posting.) After the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, The Satanic Temple filed a Third Amended Complaint.  In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Young, (SD TX, July 3, 2023), the Texas district court then dismissed the suit for lack of standing and on sovereign immunity grounds.  The court added:

Without any supporting detail, Plaintiffs assert two causes of action under the First Amendment, one being a claim swirling together the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, and the other pertaining to the Establishment Clause. Young argues that these claims are so inadequately pleaded as to deprive her of fair notice as to what exactly this suit is about in the wake of Dobbs....

The court also refused to grant plaintiffs leave to replead their claims.  In doing so, the court set out an unusually strong criticism of the performance of plaintiffs' counsel, saying in part:

Given the detail of the prior complaints and these substantial changes in the law, the deficiencies in the operative complaint are no doubt intentional. And indeed, the filing of a willfully deficient amended complaint is of a piece with the mulish litigation conduct by counsel for Plaintiffs, Attorney Matt Kezhaya, in this and other actions representing The Satanic Temple. Recently considered in this regard was whether to revoke his permission to proceed pro hac vice in light of sanctions entered against him in other federal courts after his appearance here. For example, [in one of those cases:]

He ... filed a second motion for TRO containing negligible legal analysis, with six pages of the main analysis dedicated to presentation of what’s purported to be a five-act play.....

Litigation of constitutional claims is a serious matter. Such issues deserve serious attention from counsel desiring to be taken seriously. As it turns out, Plaintiffs might have been better served by proceeding pro se, as applicable standards would dictate that their filings would be “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”...

And any repleading at this stage would manifest undue prejudice to a range of current and former Defendants who still have little clue as to the exact nature of the claims brought in this case. The Court is also of the firm belief that any further attempt at repleading would be futile, given that Attorney Kezhaya’s filings become more conclusory, reductive, and intemperate over time, in line with his performative and obstinate conduct to date.

Suspension Of Attorney Did Not Violate Her Free Exercise Rights

In In re Kelly, (DE Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2022), the Delaware Supreme Court accepted the report of its Board on Professional Responsibility and involuntarily transferred a state bar member to disability inactive status. The attorney's incoherent court filings, many containing religious references, led to the proceedings to move respondent to inactive status.  Respondent claimed, among other things, that the proceedings violated her free exercise rights. The court said in part:

It is the unfocused, irrelevant, and incoherent nature of many of Kelly’s submissions that led to this proceeding, not her religious or political beliefs as she contends. Kelly’s references to her religious and political views throughout her submissions do not shield her from scrutiny concerning her competency to practice law.

10th Circuit: Suit Against FLDS Leader Warren Jeff's Lawyers Can Move Ahead

In Bistline v. Parker, (10th Cir., March 14, 2019), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversing a district court's dismissal of the case, allowed various former members of the polygamous FLDS Church to move ahead with claims against the law firm that represented FLDS Prophet Warren Jeffs.  The court, in its 72-page opinion, summarizes plaintiffs' allegations:

Plaintiffs allege that defendants: (1) directly worked with Mr. Jeffs to create a legal framework that would shield him from the legal ramifications of child rape, forced labor, extortion, and the causing of emotional distress by separating families; (2) created an illusion of legality to bring about plaintiffs’ submission to these abuses and employed various legal instruments and judicial processes to knowingly facilitate the abuse; (3) held themselves out to be the lawyers of each FLDS member individually, thus creating a duty to them to disclose this illegal scheme; and (4) intentionally misused these attorney-client relationships to enable Mr. Jeffs’ dominion and criminal enterprise.

On plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim the majority said the district court should determine whether a lawyer-client relationship existed between defendants and various plaintiffs, saying:

If individuals have been cut off from outside resources because of sincerely held religious beliefs and have been actively and repeatedly deceived as to an attorney’s responsibilities and allegiances towards them personally, it is plausible that they reasonably believed they were individually and collectively represented by that attorney.

The district court had dismissed many of plaintiffs' claims on statute of limitations grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed, saying in part:

[D]efendants were allegedly tortfeasors who actively concealed wrongdoing from plaintiffs who plausibly contend they did not have enough knowledge to support a duty to inquire. Plaintiffs have alleged facts to support their claim that defendants had a direct fiduciary relationship of trust to plaintiffs, which they intentionally exploited to mislead plaintiffs over an extended period of time and arguably up to the time plaintiffs filed this action. The fraudulent concealment doctrine thus may operate to toll the limitations periods for plaintiffs’ claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, making it inappropriate to dismiss these claims at this stage.

The court also allowed certain plaintiffs to move ahead with claims under the Trafficking Victim Protection Reauthorization Act. Judge Briscoe filed a dissenting opinion. Courthouse News Service reports at greater length on the decision.

Louisiana AG Opinion Says ABA Model Rule Barring Discrimination Is Unconstitutional

The Louisiana State Bar Association is considering adopting an amendment to its Rules of Professional Conduct that would define professional misconduct as including:

conduct in connection with the practice of law that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know involves discrimination prohibited by law because of race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability.  This rule does not prohibit legitimate advocacy when race, color, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, or disability are issues,nor does it limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.

This is a narrower version of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) which the ABA House of Delegates adopted in 2016.  Last week, the Louisiana Attorney General's Office issued Attorney General's Opinion 17-0114 which concludes that the ABA version of the Model Rule is likely unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and that while Louisiana's proposed version seeks to avoid many of the constitutional problems, it still suffers from some of the same vagueness and overbreadth issues as does the ABA rule.

In addition to finding that the ABA Model Rule is overbroad and vague, the Opinion also concluded that it violates associational and religious liberty protections, saying in part:

Lawyers participate in a wide variety of associations that engage in expressive conduct which could run afoul of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), including faith-based legal organizations and activist organizations that promote a specific political or social platform....

ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) could also result in lawyers being punished for practicing their religion.  The United States Supreme Court specifically noted in Obergefell v. Hodges that "those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned."  However this type of advocacy appears to be prohibited by ABA Model Rule 8.4(g).... Under Rule 8.4(g), a lawyer who acts as a legal advisor on the board of their church would be engaging in professional misconduct if they participated in a march against same-sex marriage or taught a class at their religious institution against divorce....

AP reports on the Attorney General's Opinion.

ABA To Vote On Anti-Discrimination Professional Conduct Rule

At the American Bar Association Annual Meeting which begins this Thursday in San Francisco, the House of Delegates will vote on an amendment to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 (full text of amended Rule and Comment) which will make it professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(g) harass or discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This Rule does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline, or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16.

The amendment replaces a current comment the merely bars bias prejudicial to the administration of justice in representing clients. The new proposal apparently has some opposition.  In a piece published today in the conservative American Thinker, a former Regent Law School Dean and a former Reagan Administration official argue among other things:

Statutes accommodating religious conscience abound at both the state and federal level.  Law schools with an overtly religious mission, including the hiring, faculty, and admission of students, enjoy ABA accreditation.  Nationwide, lawyers and law firms hold themselves out to the public as Christians, letting the community know that they are dedicated to practicing law in accordance with ethical rules of their personal faith.  Why should such law firms be barred from hiring lawyers which share the same religious convictions?  Indeed, the Holy Scriptures counsel believers not to become "unequally yoked" with nonbelievers.  2 Corinthians 6:14.  Are Christian lawyers to be barred by ethics rules from obeying Biblical statutes?  Why should lawyers not be free to hire and fire staff on the basis of fidelity to their shared moral code? ... Why should a lawyer be penalized if he candidly advises potential clients what that code is?... 

Minnesota Supreme Court Suspends Lawyer For Anti-Catholic Statements Against Judges

In In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against Rebekah Mariya Nett, (MN Sup. Ct., Nov. 27, 2013), the Minnesota Supreme Court imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law with no right to petition for reinstatement for at least 9 months against an attorney who, among other things, made repeated anti-Catholic slurs directed at a federal bankruptcy judge and several bankruptcy trustees in connection with representing a client. (See prior related posting.) The Supreme Court said:

Nett repeatedly made frivolous and harassing personal attacks and discriminatory statements in 11 different pleadings in five distinct matters. She filed those pleadings in six tribunals over the course of 17 months. She also continued to make false statements about members of the judiciary and others after being sanctioned for the same conduct.

Reporting on the court's decision, the St. Paul Pioneer Press says that some of the objectionable statements were in bankruptcy proceedings of entities related to the Dr. R.C. Samanta Ray Institute of Science and Technology, an alleged cult in which attorney Nett was raised.

Disciplinary Office Seeks Suspension of Lawyer For Anti-Catholic Statements In Court Filings

As reported by the St. Paul Pioneer Press and by MinnLawyer Blog, the Minnesota Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility on Wednesday filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court a petition seeking suspension from practice of attorney Rebekah Nett.  The petition alleges a pattern of bad faith litigation and reckless and harassing statements.  Among the statements at issue are a number of anti-Catholic slurs directed at the federal bankruptcy court judge and several federal bankruptcy trustees. This excerpt from the 26-page petition to the state Supreme Court gives a flavor of the statements involved:

Respondent's statements ... that Judge Dreher is a Catholic judge, that Judge Dreher is a black robed bigot, that the Chapter 7 trustee had engaged in lies, deceit, treachery, and connivery... , that the fact that [3 U.S. trustees and the judge] ... are of the same race and religion demonstrates their conspiracy and deceitful practices to hurt the debtor, that ... court systems... are composed of a bunch of ignoramus, bigoted Catholic beasts that carry the sword of the church ... lacked a basis in law or fact and were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard at to their truth or falsity.

(See prior related posting.)