How LOW Can The High Court GO? - Judges Can Now Legally Do The LImbo With Insider Lawyers

When doing the Limbo, they ask, "How LOW can you GO"? I think we just found out.

I always feel a pang of outrage when I see the picture feature every week on the back page of the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly newspaper, depicting judges and insider lawyers partying and hanging all over each other, drinks in hand. How can these judges remain objective when they are drinking - and surely discussing cases with - favored insider big-firm lawyers? Of course, they cannot. In fact, it violates both the judicial canons of ethics and the lawyer ethics rules.

But never mind. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, whose judges also routinely engage in such fraternization, have given all the judges a pass. Judges and lawyers can now party hearty, without fear of transgressing any of the ethical rules. Well, it still violates them of course, but they will now pretend that it does not.  Here is an excerpt from a Lawyer's Weekly article:

Opinion: OK for judges to party at bar events

Published: 12:53 pm Thu, January 27, 2011 

By Christina Pazzanese

Event organizers and party planners are breathing a sigh of relief these days.

In a surprise move that should spice up guest lists around town, the Supreme Judicial Court has issued a Code of Judicial Ethics opinion declaring that judges can attend bar association functions, including educational conferences, receptions and even gala balls free from worry that doing so will violate their ethical obligations.

In a five-page opinion, the court describes an anonymous judge’s dilemma over whether it’s proper to accept an invitation to serve as moderator of a bench-bar panel at an unnamed bar association event — a gathering that sounds suspiciously like the Massachusetts Bar Association’s centennial conference, a two-day celebration in May marking the organization’s 100th anniversary.

The event in question features a bench-bar panel and the award of a scholarship to a needy law school student. Tickets are priced at around $150, and the program is supported by a broad array of sponsors, including law firms, law schools and “many entities similar to those that typically advertise in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly,” the court writes. Boston attorney Douglas K. Sheff, vice president of the MBA and co-chair of the conference, says he can’t confirm whether the opinion arose from the batch of invitations handed out for the upcoming celebration.

“It looks like our function,” he says, “but it’s broad enough to apply to anyone else.”

Sheff calls the opinion “a great thing” for everyone in the legal community because it clears up what has long been a source of confusion for judges and frustration for bar associations, and it expands the kinds of activities judges can now participate in without having to think twice.

Yep, it's a "great thing" to party with a judge if you are a lawyer. As the old saying goes, there are lawyers who know the law and lawyers who know the judge. Guess which type wins more often? I rather envy those who are not constrained by the obvious ethical problem here. The so-called lawyer "ethics" rules have not had very much to do with ethics for a long time. They now appear to be little more than a pretextual means to do away with those who may not find favor with insiders for other reasons.

Here is a typical Boston Bar Association party with the lawyers and judges having fun:

When they say "bench-bar" panel, I'm sure they mean something more like OPEN-bar panel. 

Since the high court now approves bench and bar Bacchanalia, will some judges with a conscience still maintain their integrity and avoid such events? Will some judges realize that attendance at this type of affair grossly compromises their integrity and makes a serious appearance of impropriety?  


It will be interesting to see which judges maintain an appropriate distance from such events, and which ones will be doing the Macarena or the Raisin Dance at some bar association party. Or maybe the Limbo: "How low can you go....."?


You can read the Supreme Judicial Court's opinion here:  http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/cje/2011-1n.html

Shoveling is For Thee, Not For Me.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has made a new rule that we have to shovel our side-walks or be liable for falls.  Until now, a property owner was only liable if someone slipped on an "un-natural" accumulation of ice or snow, rather than on ice or snow as distributed naturally from the heavens.  In other words, if the property owner caused a hazard by moving snow around and someone slipped on it, he was liable.  But he was not responsible for snow or ice that occurred naturally.

The Boston Herald found, however, in this article, that three of the seven justices of the Supreme Judicial Court don't shovel their own walks.  That's only for the little people, of course.  One of the Justices judge gave this excuse:

“We plowed, we put down salt. We’re doing the best we can,” said Cowin. “I was trying to take some time off this week.”



Yeah, that would work in her court.  I'm sure she would excuse a property owner from any liability, in a lawsuit filed by a person slipped on the ice.  "Hey, I was busy trying to get some R & R."

The other part of this decision that flies in the face of our legal system is that only the legislature can pass laws, not the Supreme Judicial Court.  It continues its tradition of illegally taking power which is not permitted to it by our State Declaration of Rights, which asserts, "The Judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers."

That statement seems simple enough that even a judge could understand it!