Standing Committee On Discipline v. Yagman

55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995)

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

In 1991 when D filed a lawsuit against several insurance companies. The case was assigned to Judge Manuel Real. D promptly sought to disqualify Judge Real on grounds of bias. The motion was randomly assigned to Judge William Keller, who denied it. Keller sanctioned D for pursuing the matter in an 'improper and frivolous manner.' A few days later, D was quoted as saying that Judge Keller 'has a penchant for sanctioning Jewish lawyers: me, David Kenner and Hugh Manes. I find this to be evidence of anti-Semitism.' The district court found that D also told the Daily Journal reporter that Judge Keller was 'drunk on the bench,' although this accusation wasn't published in the article. D received a request from Prentice Hall, publisher of the much-fretted-about Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, for comments in connection with a profile of Judge Keller; “the worst judge in the central district,” “ignorant, dishonest, ill-tempered, and a bully.” D's response was less than complimentary. D also placed an advertisement (on the stationary of his law firm) in the L.A. Daily Journal, asking lawyers who had been sanctioned by Judge Keller to contact D's office. D also told another attorney that, by leveling public criticism at Judge Keller, D hoped to get the judge to recuse himself in future cases. The attorney reported D to P. Judge Keller wrote to P and stated that 'Mr. Yagman's campaign of harassment and intimidation challenges the integrity of the judicial system. Moreover, there is clear evidence that Mr. Yagman's attacks upon me are motivated by his desire to create a basis for recusing me in any future proceeding.' P instituted proceedings against D. D raised serious First Amendment objections to being disciplined for criticizing Judge Keller. After the hearing, the district court held that D had committed sanctionable misconduct and suspended him from practice in the Central District for two years. D appealed.