Quote:
Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
[scintilliating State Bar Code excerpts]
|
It makes more sense to me that, like you've cited, state bars have the ability to suspend a member of the bar merely for being charged; they have broad discretion to take action in a lots of cases anyway.
I would be surprised, however, if state bars are actually regularly acting before criminal proceedings have been completed; I always remember references to lawyers being convicted (through trial or plea) or acquitted of crimes making reference to further action by a state bar. In the case of conviction, it's usually "He'll lose his license now. " or "The plea agreement included an agreement to give up his license." In the case of acquittal, it's usually "He may still be subject to bar proceedings, including disbarment."
Absent extreme circumstances, I have an aversion to action by an administrative body prior to adjudication of the criminality of the offense; from their practice, it seems that state bar officials tend to agree with me.
This reminds me: whatever happened with all that F. Lee Bailey stuff? Did he do any time? Get disbarred?
