God’s Will No Defense

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has issued a public reprimand of an attorney for false statements concerning a judge in connection with a guardianship proceeding, in which the attorney sought to keep the ward in a residential apartment owned by him and his wife.

The court rejected the attorney’s defense:

Attorney Riordan’s statements fall short of his ethical obligationto maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers.  The record evidence supports the referee’sconclusion that Attorney Riordan’s comments concerning Judge Dwyer violated theAttorney’s Oath…

Attorney Riordan asserts that his sincere religious conviction andbelief that he is following God’s will immunizes his conduct from prosecutionfor professional misconduct.  He believesthat he and his wife “are experiencing an ongoing spiritual and religiousprophetic experience” and that God “expects him to help those who canfall under guardianship.”

The referee recognized, and we will not question, AttorneyRiordan’s sincere religious faith, but the First Amendment does not protect allstatements made by attorneys.  Our taskis to evaluate whether the statements upon which the charges are based wereeither false, or made in reckless disregard of the truth.

Here, the referee considered the record evidence and properlydetermined that Attorney Riordan’s statements about Judge Dwyer are notconstitutionally protected.  Falsestatements made knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, are notconstitutionally protected.

The court had declined to name the attorney as guardian due to the financial conflict of interest presented by the living arrangement. (Mike Frisch)