In Re Reines

771 F.3d 1326 (2014) c07500GENTILE V. STATE BAR OF NEVADA 501 U.S. 1030 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is a member of the bar of this court, having been admitted to practice on October 1, 1993. D is a member of the bar of this court, having been admitted to practice on October 1, 1993. The next day, Chief Judge Rader sent a private email to D. In the email, Chief Judge Rader, who was not a member of either panel, stated that judges on the Promega panels at a judges-only lunch had praised D's performance at the oral arguments. The email referred to a special friendship between D and then-Chief Judge Rader. In the email, -Chief Judge Rader referred to D as 'my friend' and said, 'in sum, I was really proud to be your friend today!' Chief Judge Rader closed with '[y]our friend for life.' The email also added an effusive endorsement by Chief Judge Rader himself and contained an invitation to share the email with others. D then circulated the email to no fewer than 35 existing and prospective clients, with accompanying comments soliciting their business based on the email. The majority of the more than 70 individuals who received it were lawyers, but some were non-lawyers. D told some recipients that this type of feedback was 'unusual' or 'quite unusual.' Reines (D) was subjected to an order to show cause as to why his actions associated with an email did not warrant discipline by this court because they violated Rule 8.4(e) of the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. D acknowledged forwarding the email to clients and potential clients. D argued that he did not imply any improper influence under Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(e); 'because information about [his] skill at oral advocacy is an appropriate consideration in the selection of counsel.' D argued that ordering discipline would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. D included statements from experts in legal ethics to support his arguments. D did not request a hearing in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46(c) and Federal Circuit Attorney Discipline Rule 5(b).