Good Evening your Honor,
Today the plaintiff comes forward with a solemn request that it rarely asks. It seeks disbarment action against one of its most active attorneys in Redmont. Such a prayer for relief is not taken lightly, not is it taken with any misunderstanding of the gravity of the situation. Indeed, disbarment in and of itself is the greatest measure that the plaintiff can bring forward against a lawyer. It prevents one of our players from interacting with other players in the way that they wish. However, the dangers of allowing the defendant to continue to practice potential leaves his clients in serious danger. The defendant has missed deadlines, been rude to the court, lied on the stand, and jeopardized his clients' cases.
We have put together a timeline of the events, as well as an analysis of the timeline, discussion of past case law relating to excessive contempt of court, discussion of perjury charges, a discussion of RBA Ethics Doctrine violations, and a conclusion; in that order.
Timeline:
January 1, 2024: Defendant states in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-021).
April 7, 2024: Defendant charged with contempt of court and reprimanded for failing to inform the court of their need for an extension on an opening statement and having an outburst (P-019).
May 1, 2024: Defendant charged with contempt of court for failing to provide a closing statement (P-017). An appeal was later denied by the Supreme Court of Redmont (P-018), citing wasted time and resources.
May 31, 2024: Defendant found in contempt of court (P-012).
June 1, 2024: Defendant was admonished by the judge for cursing at and disrespecting the presiding judicial officer and was charged with contempt of court (P-014).
June 2, 2024: Defendant charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on behalf of a plaintiff (P-015).
July 4, 2024: Defendant found in contempt of court and admonished for poor courtroom etiquette (P-011).
July 7, 2024 - July 19, 2024: Multiple instances of defendant's behavior deemed disruptive or disrespectful towards the judiciary. These include:
July 8, 2024: Using language considered snarky by the judge (P-008).
July 10, 2024: Perjury objection sustained against defendant (P-009).
July 11, 2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to provide an answer in a timely fashion (P-007).
July 12, 2024: Presiding judge states that defendant has clearly perjured themself (P-010).
July 19, 2024: Reprimanded for speaking out of line and being rude to the judge (P-013).
July 21, 2024: Defendant launches lawsuit against Nacholebraa & Bank of Reveille, opening government up to potential liability of over $2.6 million (P-001) and Defendant attacks the presiding judge's understanding of tax law (P-006).
July 23, 2024: Lawsuit filed on July 21st is dropped via Motion to Nolle Prosequi. (P-001). Defendant states in #legal Discord channel that they were willing to incur a $5,000 fine in order to obtain evidence (P-002).
July 25, 2024: Plaintiff's counsel placed a vote in the RBA Council to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee for review. (P-004)
July 26, 2024: Plaintiff's counsel’s vote passes in the RBA Council to refer the matter to the Ethics Committee (P-004).
Post July 26, 2024: The RBA Ethics Committee reviews, certifies, and approves charges against the defendant. Charges include: Multiple Perjury Charges; Excessive Contempt of Court Charges; Conduct unbecoming of a lawyer; Excessive breach of the Ethical Doctrine (P-005).
August 5, 2024: Defendant repeats statement in #legal Discord channel that they would ghost-write if disbarred (P-024).
August 6, 2024: RBA successfully passes a motion to disbar the defendant (P-023).
As you see, this case is not about isolated incidents; it is about a pattern of behavior spanning over several months, marked by contempt, dishonesty, and disrespect. Here is our analysis.
Analysis of the Timeline:
January 1, 2024: Even before his recent offenses, the defendant stated in an online forum that he would engage in the practice of law, regardless of whether licensed or not, by ghostwriting if disbarred (P-021). This chilling admission foreshadows his disregard for the rules governing legal practice.
April 7, 2024: He was granted a 24 hour extension on a 48 hours request, causing him to have an outburst attacking the judge. He created a situation where he was disciplined for failing behaving disrespectfully towards the honorable Nacholebraa where none was needed. (P-019).
This pattern continued with several incidents of failing to meet his professional obligations:
May 1, 2024: He was charged with contempt for failing to provide a closing statement in court, causing delays and wasted time (P-017). This disregard for judicial efficiency was later upheld by the Supreme Court of Redmont (P-018), who noted his intentional obstruction.
May 31, 2024: He was found in contempt of court again (P-012).
June 1 & 2, 2024: Further charges followed for disrespecting the presiding judge and failing to represent his clients properly (P-014, P-015). The defendant cursed at the judge, saying “Don't be all hard ass on me” in response to an overruled objection, showing that the defendant cannot handle situations where his client’s interests are not succeeding. Further, the defendant refuses to take any responsibility for staffing within their own firm regarding the representation of the firm’s clients, causing the defendant’s issues in the first place.
This pattern culminated in a series of events throughout July, where the defendant repeatedly engaged in disruptive behavior and disrespectful conduct towards the court (P-006, P-007, P-008, P-009, P-010, P-011, P-013). On July 21st, he launched a frivolous lawsuit that exposed the government to significant financial liability, even admitting to intentionally risking contempt of charges to obtain evidence through discovery (P-001, P-002).
On July 26, 2024, the RBA Ethics Committee voted to approve charges against him for perjury, excessive contempt of court, unethical conduct, and breaching ethical doctrine (P-005).
Finally, on August 6, 2024, the RBA successfully passed a motion to disbar the defendant (P-023), recognizing his unfitness to practice law. Even after facing these consequences, he continued to express his intent to engage in ghostwriting even if disbarred (P-024).
The defendant's actions demonstrate a consistent pattern of disregard for legal and ethical norms.
He repeatedly engaged in disrespectful and disruptive behavior towards the court, including outbursts against judges, failing to fulfill professional obligations like providing closing statements, and using inappropriate language. This pattern escalated throughout the timeline with numerous contempt charges, culminating in a frivolous lawsuit aimed at obtaining evidence through unethical means. His actions were intentional and demonstrated a willingness to risk consequences, even admitting to intentionally courting contempt charges. This culminated in his disbarment for perjury, excessive contempt of court, unethical conduct, and breaching ethical doctrines. Despite facing these serious repercussions, he continued to express his intent to practice law illegally through ghostwriting.
Essentially, the defendant exhibits a complete disregard for the legal system and the ethical responsibilities of his profession.
Past Case Law Analysis:
In the prior case of Redmont Bar Association v. Royalsnakee (2024) FCR 38, the court grappled with the issue of excessive contempt of court charges.
The court acknowledged that even two charges of contempt can be excessive under certain circumstances. Furthermore, in that same case, the argument for six charges of contempt being excessive was accepted by the Court. While the exact details regarding which specific charges were deemed excessive remain unclear from (2024) FCR 38, the fact that the argument for exceeding the reasonable threshold was accepted by the court is highly significant. The defendant has been charged with contempt of court eight times, an amount exceeding what Royalsnakee was charged with, who was disbarred for their actions and contempt of our legal system.
Analysis of Perjury Charges:
While a single instance of perjury might be subject to debate, the fact that the defendant had a perjury objection sustained against him (P-009) carries significant weight. This means the judge directly recognized his sworn statement as false, leaving no room for ambiguity.
The presiding judge’s own declaration in a different case that the defendant “clearly perjured themself” (P-010) further solidifies this point. This was not a mere suspicion; it was a direct and unambiguous finding by the judicial officer who witnessed his testimony firsthand.
We need to emphasize that the perjury charge and perjury affirmation are not isolated incidents. They are part of the defendant's larger pattern of disrespect for the court and disregard for truthfulness.
Perjury is a grave offense that undermines the very foundation of our justice system. It erodes public trust in the courts and weakens the legitimacy of legal proceedings. The defendant's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for the truth and an intent to deceive the court. This egregious misconduct, justifies disbarment.
Analysis of RBA Ethical Doctrine 3.3 — Egregious Conduct in Court and 3.4 — Perjury:
The defendant's actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for the ethical standards expected of those entrusted with upholding justice. The RBA Ethical Doctrine, designed to ensure integrity and professionalism within the legal profession, provides clear guidelines against egregious conduct.
RBA Ethical Doctrine 3.3 — Egregious Conduct in Court addresses this issue, defining "Egregious/unbecoming conduct within court proceedings" as actions like disrespecting the court, opposing counsel, or parties; failing to comply with court orders or rules of procedure; making frivolous or misleading arguments; and engaging in conduct that undermines the administration of justice.
The defendant has repeatedly demonstrated a blatant disregard for court orders, rules of procedure, and the dignity of the judicial process. This pattern of behavior, as outlined in facts 6 through 19, paints a clear picture: the defendant is not simply making mistakes; they are intentionally flouting their obligations as an attorney. They have been found in contempt of court eight separate times, for actions ranging from failing to appear and provide necessary filings to engaging in disrespectful and disruptive behavior towards the presiding judge.
04/07/2024: Charged with contempt of court and reprimanded for failing to inform the court of their need for an extension on an opening statement and having an outburst before the court.
05/01/2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to provide a closing statement. The defendant was later admonished by the Supreme Court for this action.
05/31/2024: Found in contempt of court.
06/01/2024: Admonished by the judge for cursing at and disrespecting the presiding judicial officer. Charged with contempt of court for the aforementioned conduct.
06/02/2024, the defendant was charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on the behalf of a plaintiff they were representing.
07/04/2024: Found in contempt of court and admonished for poor courtroom etiquette.
07/08/2024: Language deemed "snarky" by the judge, considered distracting and interfering with the orderly process of the court. This was not explicitly a contempt charge but an indication of disapproval.
07/11/2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to provide their answer in a timely fashion.
07/19/2024: Reprimanded for speaking out of line and being rude to the judge.
07/23/2024: Charged with contempt of court for failing to respond on behalf of a plaintiff they were representing.
Furthermore, Rule 3.4 addresses perjury, defining it as knowingly making false statements under oath. The evidence will show that the defendant has been found to have committed perjury on two occasions:
07/10/2024: The defendant had a perjury objection sustained against them
07/12/2024: The presiding judge stated that the defendant had clearly perjured themself. While not an immediate charge nor sustained objection, it indicates judicial disapproval.. The defendant demonstrates a willingness to manipulate the truth.
This is not a simple lapse in judgment; it is a deliberate and repeated attempt to undermine the very core of our legal system, which relies on truthful testimony to reach just outcomes.
The defendant's actions are not isolated incidents. They paint a picture of a lawyer who has repeatedly chosen to prioritize his own interests over the integrity of the legal profession and the rights of those who appear before the court. His egregious conduct flies against the RBA's Ethical Doctrine, thus the defendant should be disbarred for these actions.
Concluding the Opening Statements:
In conclusion, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Honorable Court, the evidence presented paints a stark and undeniable picture: the defendant’s actions are not merely lapses in judgment or isolated incidents; they represent a systemic disregard for the law, ethical obligations, and the very foundations of our justice system. His pattern of contempt, dishonesty, and disrespect towards the court, opposing counsel, and his own clients is deeply troubling and demands accountability.
Disbarment is not taken lightly. It is the ultimate sanction, reserved for those whose conduct has irrevocably compromised their fitness to practice law. In this case, the defendant’s repeated and egregious violations of ethical standards leave no doubt: he is unfit to continue serving as an attorney. His actions not only jeopardize the rights of his clients but also erode public trust in the legal profession.
We urge you, Honorable Court, to uphold the integrity of our legal system and protect the public by disbarring the defendant. Only then can we ensure that justice is served and that the sanctity of our courts is preserved. We rest our opening statement.
