Andy Thibault

     [Back to Columns & Stories]

Cool Justice 
Let's Get Existential And Deal
By ANDY THIBAULT, Columnist
Law Tribune Newspapers
June 20, 2005

   I know what it's like to be sanctioned. The nuns took a lot of my dough and my best 45's - hit singles on little records -- for swearing. They said it was all for the mission drive, but I can't vouch for that.

   When a judge recently fined a Norwalk prosecutor $92 for calling another lawyer "a two-faced bastard," I thought it would be fun to take a look at the range of sanctions lawyers face. There was the lawyer fined $100 in New London for calling opposing counsel a schmuck. I'll note for the record: This must be worse than calling another lawyer a two-faced bastard.

   In the O.J. Simpson trial, lawyers were fined for comments at sidebar and making wisecracks. A New York federal judge sanctioned a lawyer for questioning his impartiality. Life in the courtroom can be tough, what with judges suspending the Constitution at whim.

   In a gross departure from what is normal and customary, a former Connecticut consumer counsel was cited and fined $1,000 in 1996  -- for playing golf on the job. When has this ever happened before or since? If the sanction for playing golf on the job was ever applied in an even-handed manner, various state's attorneys and judges would be crying the blues. Maybe it's a good thing that they are left alone to contemplate green pastures away from their seats of power. Fewer citizens are at risk.

   Sometimes the fines seem to make sense. A California lawyer who produced boxes of crayons instead of actual evidence and otherwise mocked discovery in a bank fraud case was fined $756,000 in 1993. A New York lawyer who used identical, canned and meritless pleadings in more than 50 cases was fined $850,000. Former President Clinton paid a $25,000 fine in connection with his misleading testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case.

   Rarely, if ever, though, are prosecutors fined for presenting cops they know are lying on the witness stand. Such an officer, the late New York Criminal Court Judge Irving Younger said, is "as likely to be indicted by his co-worker, the prosecutor, as he is to be struck down by thunderbolts from an avenging an avenging heaven." Further, nothing seems to stop prosecutors from putting defendants through trials even if they themselves doubt the defendant is guilty.

   On balance, I have to conclude that sanctions are essentially meaningless. They are tools for those in power to keep their power - nothing else The ruler-wielding, pick-pocketing nuns would make fine judges.

   An honest and fair system of sanctions would be administered by citizens, not judges. An argument against this is that rank and file citizens don't necessarily understand the law. When did that ever stop anyone from becoming a judge? With citizens administering sanctions, we might see judges who treat citizens with contempt fined once in a while, along with the lawyers who occasionally go off the wall.

   Hello, Judiciary Committee. Anybody home? First, let's get rid of that phony Judicial Review Council. It gives the appearance that judges are accountable, which is a big lie. Judges are rewarded now for making cases secret and kissing up to the rich and powerful. Judges who claim they hate this practice aren't making enough noise to dislodge the leadership they refer to as The Tank Commanders.

   Other  judges get away with saying things like, "I don't care what the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court is, this is my ruling." With Joe and Mary Six-Pack in charge, they might not.

Back to Top