Committee on the Conduct of Attorneys v. Oliver, 07-4097 (10^th Cir., Dec. 18, 2007)

When Utah District Judge Paul Cassell decided to step down from the federal bench after a mere five years, many were disappointed to see the brilliant young conservative leaving public service. But at least one lawyer was thrilled by Cassell’s resignation: D. Bruce Oliver, who also happens to be the appellant in this Tenth Circuit case. You see, Judge Cassell filed a sealed complaint referring Oliver for professional discipline because Oliver had missed deadlines and violated court orders in twenty-seven cases.

During the resulting disciplinary proceedings, Oliver gave a variety of explanations for his conduct. For example,

Oliver testified that “it’s okay not to respond” to orders to show cause because the order itself said “if you don’t [respond] your case is going to be dismissed.” . . . He felt that if the court thought a response necessary it “would say, ‘You know, you need to respond to this, and failure to respond will result in sanctions.’”

These explanations failed to impress; instead, the hearing officer found that Oliver “was often incredible and at times outrageous. . . . , antagonistic, defensive, arrogant, and combative.” In the end, Oliver got his license suspended for a year, another three years of probation, and a public reprimand.

On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, the Court affirms, but not before enriching the public record of Oliver’s incompetence. Among other things, Oliver’s brief argued that the disciplinary proceeding was unconstitutional because it

permit[s] a lesser standard of preponderance rather tha[n] requiring clear and convincing evidence, by encouraging arbitrary application and enforcement, by encouraging ex parte communications between the committee, the actor, and the court, the judex, against the defendant, Mr. Oliver, the reus, by failing to dispose of pretrial motions at the pretrial stage, by failing to conduct the trial in the final stage of litigation.

The Tenth’s response: “We do not address this muddled statement.”

Posted Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:39:20 and filed under Bench Slaps, Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.