Rude Is Not Enough

The Nevada Supreme Court rejected the conclusion that an attorney’s conduct in a traffic court matter intended to disrupt the tribunal in violation of Rule 3.5(d).

The attorney had challenged the judge’s application of governing law and had threatened to appeal when the prosecutor suggested that either he or his client had engaged in fraud and could be charged with perjury.

He had suggested he would get the judge “proper guidance” on the law from the district court.

The court here

The testimony and evidence here do not support that [the attorney’s] statements, while ill-mannered in tone at times, were made with an intent to disrupt the proceedings. [His] advancement of a legal theory in his client’s defense and in an effort to protect his client’s rights, including making a record for appellate scrutiny and expressing his intent to appeal in response to arguments made by opposing counsel, is within the bounds of permissible advocacy.

While the conduct may have been “offensive” and “rude” to the justice court judge, it violated none of the three charged rule violations.

The attorney had also been charged with Rule 8.2 and 8.4(d) violations.

The case is In the Matter of the Discipline of Maridon. (Mike Frisch)