Unprotected Speech Draws Sanction

The California State Bar Court Review Department has recommended a nine-month suspension for an attorney’s statements toward and concerning judicial officers.

Several statements made by the attorney were protected by the First Amendment and were thus not sanctionable

This matter reflects a growing concern in our courts regarding serious misconduct by lawyers in how they refer to or correspond with judicial officers. Often, zealous advocacy is cited as a rationale for tirades leveled at judges and other legal officers. Our Supreme Court and other courts have carefully navigated between these outbursts and the First Amendment rights of the lawyer involved. (See Ramirez v. State Bar (1980) 28 Cal.3d 402; Standing Committee v. Yagman (9th Cir. 1995) 55 F.3d 1430.) In such cases, the resulting discipline has been very low, if any was imposed at all. Indeed, the following from Bridges v. State of California, TimesMirror Co, et al. (1941) 314 U.S. 252, 270 was quoted in Yagman: “The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly appraises the character of American public opinion. For it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than it would enhance respect.” (Standing Committee v. Yagman, supra, 55 F.3d at p. 1445.)

But such protection has limits. When, as here, the repeated, abusive criticism by an attorney departs from normal or excessive zealous advocacy, constituting harassment, bordering on misogynistic language, or enters the realm of credible criminal threats against a judicial officer or her family, we cannot stand by and minimize the seriousness of the conduct as simply aggressive lawyering. As we discuss, post, such serious misbehavior warrants serious discipline. The discipline we recommend reflects the changed mores of our society in the areas of attorney civility and harassment. It also is consistent with the discipline imposed on lawyers in other states for similar misconduct.

In his first disciplinary proceeding, Jeffrey Jason Olin is charged with eight counts of misconduct based on his actions surrounding a family law matter involving his wife and son. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar (OCTC) charged Olin with seven counts of failing to maintain respect due to courts and judicial officers, under Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (b), based on disrespectful and demeaning emails he sent to multiple judicial officers. Olin’s alleged misconduct also included a violation of section 6106 for moral turpitude (threat of violence) based on an email he sent to a court commissioner stating that if he won the lottery, he would pay someone to kill her minor child.

In a well-reasoned decision, the hearing judge found Olin culpable of three counts but dismissed the remaining five counts upon determining certain statements in the dismissed counts constituted protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and others lacked sufficient proof of culpability. We affirm the dismissal of counts two, three, five, seven, and eight with prejudice. The judge’s recommended discipline included a 90-day actual suspension on the three counts. Olin appeals and asserts that all of his statements are constitutionally protected and not disciplinable. OCTC accepts the judge’s culpability findings and discipline recommendation and did not appeal.

Upon our independent review of the record (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.12), and after supplemental briefing by the parties, discussed in more detail below, we affirm the hearing judge’s culpability findings, along with certain findings in mitigation and aggravation. After reviewing the record, the relevant standards, and comparable law, we conclude that the recommended discipline should be increased to a nine-month period of actual suspension.

The conduct involved a commissioner presiding over the attorney’s family law matter

On October 7, 2019, Olin appeared in the courthouse and Commissioner Veasey’s courtroom wearing a t-shirt that read “Veasey’s Victims” although his family law case was not on calendar that day. During his disciplinary trial, Commissioner Veasey testified that she was frightened when seeing him and left the courtroom to lock herself in her chambers. Olin admitted to starting the group “Veasey’s Victims” after he became aware of other interested individuals. He testified that he was motivated to start a “movement” to get Commissioner Veasey removed through “strength in numbers.” Commissioner Veasey recused herself from Olin’s family law matter on October 16.

The matter was assigned to Judge Powell, who denied Respondent’s request for a mental health evaluation of his son

While on the record, Olin accused Judge Powell of not caring about the child and commenting that the judge was “a horrible person.”

Less than an hour after the conclusion of the hearing, Olin emailed Judge Powell at his court email address with the subject line, “Bribed?,” and the body of the message stated, “How much is my ex-wife’s rich boyfriend paying you? Why are you so corrupt? Did you ever have a soul?”

He later filed complaints against judges.

Judge Riff investigated and dismissed the complaints

More than a year later, on June 23, 2021, Olin sent an email to Judge Riff, and copied Commissioner Veasey, with the subject line “Wishes.” The email read: “You are a corrupt judge and you run an entirely corrupt department. When I complained about Glenda Veasey holding a non-noticed in camera hearing at which only my ex-wife was present after which Veasey issued an unconstitutional ‘permanent’ amendment to a DVRO she issued illegally, without setting any hearing on the permanence of that amendment, YOU took nearly half a year to determine that the  record of that illegal hearing – the official Minute Order – was simply wrong because Veasey just doesn’t do that. You just get to decide the OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE EVENT was wrong – and took nearly six months to make that absurd determination. That is TYRANNY.”

The email continued by describing the “Incompetent Veasey” and calling the commissioner “a piece of shit” because she supposedly “ordered a mother to wean her child because the breast feeding [sic] was interfering with the father’s visitation.” The email ended with, “I sincerely hope you catch an especially painful and prolonged form of terminal brain cancer, tyrant. I hope you and Veasey burn in hell.”

Further emails followed

I am stuck in an Orwellian nightmare of horribly lazy and incompetent judges. This is what caused me to flee LA County. I had been transferred to the lying cunt Guillemet after the lying cunt Rene Gilbertson of Torrance Department demonstrably lied about having read my motion pleadings [sic] before a hearing on July 9, 2020. You people are lying corrupt scum. You people are Evil and have maliciously destroyed my soul.”

That same day, on June 25, 2021, Olin also emailed Judge Guillemet, stating, “You destroyed me with your lies and incompetence. You should not be a judge. You are the real criminal. You lie and violate laws with ease and frequency. You are a despicable person. You are evil.”

There are more emails and criminal charges of violating a stay-away order.

On December 21, 2018, while Kelly’s DVRO restraining order was in effect, Olin emailed [his wife’s suspected paramour] Silver, threatening a lawsuit against Kelly. He stated, “As you told me when you were threatening my law license: You better watch out. The Cunt is supposed to have a real estate license or at least be registered . . . The Cunt done fucked up going after mine when she doesn’t even have hers.” He further stated, “Finally, her taunting email from today intentionally disturbed my peace and we know what follows that don’t we?” He ended the email by signing off with the phrase “Heghlu’meH QaQ jajvam.” Viewing the email as a threat, Silver forwarded it to Kelly and he took measures to secure his safety, including notifying his surrounding neighbors.

On December 19, 2019, a misdemeanor complaint was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in People v. Jeffrey Jason Olin, case number 9TR06381. Olin was charged with two counts of disobeying the November 2018 restraining order in violation of Penal Code section 273.6. Judges Rene Gilbertson and Kimberley Baker Guillemet presided over hearings in this matter.

Footnote on the translation of the phrase

During the disciplinary trial, Silver testified that he searched the internet for a translation of that phrase and found it translating as “good day to die.” The hearing judge noted that Silver’s testimony relating to the translation was received only for the limited purpose of establishing the listener’s or reader’s state of mind, not for the truth of the matter asserted. (See Evid. Code, § 1250.) Olin stated that he intended the phrase to be “inspirational” and described the meaning as “Today is a good day to die.” The phrase is in the “Klingon” language of the Star Trek film franchise.

Conditional threat

The fact that Olin’s threat was conditioned on him winning the lottery did not eliminate Commissioner Veasey’s reasonable fear for the safety of herself and her child when considering Olin’s history of intimidating behavior towards her. And California law prescribes that even without intending to cause immediate death or serious injury the “knowing
infliction of mental terror is equally deserving of moral condemnation.” (People v. Thornton (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 419, 424.) Furthermore, the First Amendment does not protect credible threats of violence, like the one Olin made. (City of San Jose v. Garbett (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 526, 536-537.) Olin’s contention that his statement did not “place anyone in actual danger” does not negate the conclusion that intentional threatening or harassing behavior involves moral turpitude.

Culpability in general

His statements accused judicial officers of dishonesty, bribery, corruption, incompetence, engaging in judicial misconduct, and included a litany of insults and personal attacks, some of which amounted to threatening behavior and harassment. The hearing judge found Olin fully culpable under count one and culpable under count four in part. The judge dismissed the remaining counts with prejudice, concluding certain statements are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and that OCTC failed to sufficiently prove culpability under other statements. As discussed below, we also find Olin culpable under count one and partially under count four. The record contains evidence demonstrating Olin’s reckless disregard for the truth while disrespecting judges by making derogatory and false statements which were not protected speech. Accordingly, Olin twice failed to maintain respect for the courts and judges in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (b). We affirm the dismissal of counts two, three, five, seven, and eight with prejudice

Sanction

We acknowledge the fact that Olin’s misconduct was likely exacerbated by the emotional stress of a family law matter involving his son. We also consider that his disrespectful statements to Judge Powell and about Commissioner Veasy were not public. However, we cannot excuse his repeated misconduct and lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his inappropriate behavior. Based on the case law, aggravation, and mitigation, we find a nine-month actual suspension is appropriate discipline in this case. It reflects our substantial concern about Olin’s failure to maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers and that our realization that the national mores on this subject have changed over time and our recommendation should reflect those changes. This discipline will impress upon Olin the importance of his ethical duties and is necessary to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession.

(Mike Frisch)