Lawyer Who Subpoenaed Blogger Seidel Sanctioned

Zathras26 writes "Slashdot has previously reported on a lawyer subpoenaing Kathleen Seidel for blogging about him in an unflattering light. Seidel successfully moved to quash the subpoena. In granting the motion to quash, the judge ordered the lawyer, Clifford Shoemaker, to show cause as to why he should not be sanctioned for his behavior. Whatever his response was, if any, it apparently wasn't good enough, because Shoemaker has been formally sanctioned for his actions."

Comments

Another positive sign for the justice system

[Majik Sheff]

It's nice to see a judge with a spine. I love reading stories about lawyers getting called out when they step over the line.

Re:Another positive sign for the justice system

[Goaway]

Wow, that's some tunnel vision. Stories like this happen all the time. You only hear about the ones that make people angry, because what sells news.

Cynicism is never a substitute for insight.

Re:Another positive sign for the justice system

[ScepticOne]

On the contrary, it's depressingly often an excellent substitute for insight.

Re:Another positive sign for the justice system

[spun]

yes, GP needs to re-evaluate his understanding of that word. Cynicism is EXACTLY what one should practice when one doesn't have the experience for insight. Yes and no. Not cynicism in the modern sense of disbelieving in anything good and decent. Cynicism in the original sense of not believing or disbelieving anything.

Judges laying down the law?

[jhRisk]

Is it me or are judges starting to "fight back" a bit? IANAL but I thought sactions were relatively rare and I've hear them used as threats or even imposed quite a bit as of late. Perhaps instead certain attorneys are getting more ballsy as they see their RIAA friends getting away with quite a bit?

In any event, it's a step in the right direction and pleased to read about it.

He deserved.....

[stainlesssteelpat]

....a slap for this. I've got friends who have aspergers (one of them a really talented and succuesful IT professional), and a cousin with autism. Its a really hard thing to deal with for families and all concerned, he's "lucky" because he's got it light. To raise a child with autism takes guts and commitment, I take my hat off to her. Furthermore, to take a stand against crackpots while juggling your own domestic issues is admirable, and certainly doesn't deserve a legal slap in the face for trying to a) educate people through her blog and b)debunk crackpot theories that only seek to gain monetary gain through litigation and not practical solutions. I think this lawyer has watched to many movies and wants to get a sex change. Its a shame this woman had to go through this kind of shit in the first place. Makes me glad that frivolous litigation has reached such absurd levels in Australia yet.

Shakin' in His Shoes I'm Sure

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

In the end, the judge didn't order Shoemaker to pay a monetary sanction, but he did order the Virginia lawyer to attend ethics training and directed his court clerk to notify the Virginia State Bar so that it could consider disciplinary action on its own.

I'm sure that if I pulled the same stunt against a lawyer or anyone with access to lawyers, I'd be facing a hell of a lot more than an opportunity to doodle at an "ethics training" course. He'll probably just learn how to act ethical now while remaining a charlatan.

One law for them. Another for the rest of us. Don't forget it.

Re:Shakin' in His Shoes I'm Sure

[darkmeridian]

I generally share cynical views but everything here is above board (so far). State rights prevent a federal court judge from disbarring or professionally sanctioning an attorney as that is a matter for the state bar that accredited the attorney. The federal judge had his clerk file a complaint against the lawyer to the state bar. I'm sure that if we keep an eye on this case, the attorney in question will get sanctioned on a painful level by the state bar association.

Re:Shakin' in His Shoes I'm Sure

[belmolis]

This is not true. The federal courts have their own bar. To practice in a federal court, an attorney must be admitted to practice in that court. Most federal courts automatically admit any attorney who is licensed in the state in which the federal court is located, but this is a matter of courtesy and convenience, not law. Several federal districts require attorneys to pass a separate examination on federal law before admitting them. There is also a special procedure for admission of attorneys to practice patent law.

A federal judge can therefore take disciplinary action against an attorney independently of any state action. The only relevance of state's rights is that a federal court cannot disbar an attorney from practice in state courts but can only refer the matter to the state's disciplinary body.

Unlikely

[Magic5Ball]

There are enough filters between trials and news consumers that it's unlikely you're experiencing a representative sample of any legal system. Of all the cases adjudicated, only a very small portion involve circumstances or individuals warranting media attention. Of all those, a fraction deserve more than local interest. Of those, news outlets and packagers pick up yet a smaller fraction.

It may be that cases involving judges who also sanction lawyers are simply more exciting for some reason, and are therefore their proportion of visible stories is increasing, but that says more about the news media than it does about the judicial system.

exorcism please

[RockMFR]

In response, Shoemaker filed a rambling opposition to potential sanctions in which he asserted that Seidel was engaged in a conspiracy with Bayer and others to harass him, his client, and various witnesses.

I didn't know Jack Thompson could transfer his soul into other bodies. Yikes!

Re:exorcism please

[halcyon1234]

I didn't know Jack Thompson could transfer his soul into other bodies. Yikes!

When the student is ready, the master will appear

Dis people, but don't say bad things about food.

[Futurepower(R)]

So, the court upholds the constitutional guarantee of free speech. But... only if the speech is against people.

This is not a joke: In 13 states, you do not have the right of free speech if you talk about food.

Read about food libel laws. Say anything you like about people, but don't libel food!

Don't read this, if you live in these states: Citizens of Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, you may not read the next paragraph:

Large amounts of caffeine have an effect on the human central nervous system that many people consider to be unhealthy. In my opinion, it is better to avoid caffeine. That means avoiding soft drinks with caffeine, and avoiding coffee unless it is de-caffeinated.

Citizens of those states, resume reading. If you care for yourself, you will care for your government. Read the many, many books about government corruption in the United States. Take some action against abusiveness.

More stories about your loss of the right to free speech:

Talk Show Host Gets First Taste of Food Disparagement Laws

Food disparagement laws: A threat to us all.

Food Fights

Food Fight - food disparagement laws fought by Center for Science in the Public Interest's FoodSpeak Coalition project

Objection!

[Shadow Wrought]

"Your Honor I strongly object to this exhibit."
"On what grounds, counselor?"
"It really hurts our case."

Good for the Judge. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you automatically have a remedy.