Edward The fact of the matter is the initial investigation stemmed from Slick being accused of being serial molester--after trial he paid off at least one to avoid civil trial--the BJ -cigar stuffing --perjury-obstruction of justice disbarrment ect came in the after math--when it was discovered he was also a serial liar--I put the legal disbarrment papers up it for you previously so you could see how the real legal professionals addressed issue--would you like to see it again.
--was going to save you the embarrassment but since you started thread believe it is time "once again" to address the diff on ambulance chasers opinions vs real legal professionals.
l
Text of petition to disbar Clinton
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS
NO. CIV 2000 - 5677
JAMES A. NEAL, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
PLAINTIFF
vs.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
DEFENDANT
COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT
Comes the Plaintiff, James A. Neal, as Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, by and through undersigned counsel, and for his Complaint for Disbarment against the Defendant, William Jefferson Clinton, states and alleges that:
1. The Plaintiff, at the direction of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct (the "Committee") and under the authority granted the Executive Director by the Procedures of the Arkansas Supreme Court Regulating Professional Conduct of Attorneys at Law, revised on January 15,1998 (the "Procedures"), initiates this disbarment action against Mr. Clinton.
2. Pursuant to Section 5K of the Procedures, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas is the proper venue for the adjudication of this matter.
3. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted Mr. Clinton the privilege to practice law on September 7, 1973. Mr. Clinton's Arkansas Bar Identification Number is 73019. He is the 42nd President of the United States of America. At all times material to this case, Mr. Clinton resided in Washington, D.C., but remained subject to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct for the State of Arkansas. Mr. Clinton, pursuant to his request of June 30, 1990, placed his Arkansas license on inactive status for continuing legal education purposes.
4. On April 12,1999, Judge Susan Webber Wright, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, issued a 32 page Memorandum Opinion and Order (the "Order") in Jones v. Clinton, et al., Case No. LR-C-94-290, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
5. In the Order, Judge Wright held Mr. Clinton in contempt of her December 11, 1997 Discovery Orders (the "Discovery Orders"). The Order served as the basis of a judicial referral to the Committee, and serves as the basis for this Complaint for Disbarment.
6. In the Order, Judge Wright found, inter alia, the following:
(a) That Mr. Clinton gave false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process to Ms. Jones' attorneys during Mr. Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition;
(b) That Mr. Clinton gave intentionally false deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone or ever engaged -in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky;
(c) That Mr. Clinton, in a televised Address to the Nation on August 17, 1998, acknowledged that he "misled people" with regard to the questions posed to him by Ms. Jones' attorneys.
(d) That Mr. Clinton's contumacious conduct in the Jones v. Clinton case, coming as it did from a member of the bar and chief law enforcement officer of this Nation, was without justification and undermined the integrity of the judicial system.
7. As a result of these findings, Judge Wright sanctioned Mr. Clinton, ordering him to pay Ms. Jones' attorneys any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by his willful failure to obey the Court's Discovery Orders, and to pay the sum of $1,202.00 in expenses incurred by the Court in traveling to Washington, D.C. to preside over Mr. Clinton's deposition.
8. In the Order, Judge Wright offered Mr. Clinton the opportunity to demonstrate why he was not in civil contempt and why sanctions should not be imposed, or, alternatively, why the Court was otherwise in error in the manner it was proceeding.
9. Additionally, Judge Wright stayed enforcement of the Order for thirty (30) days to give Mr. Clinton an opportunity to request a hearing or to file an appeal.
10. In the Order, Judge Wright stated that the Court would entertain any legitimate and reasonable requests from Mr. Clinton for extensions of time in which to address the matter.
11. Mr. Clinton neither requested a hearing, nor did he appeal the Order.
12. On or about September 28, 1998, Mr. Clinton paid $89,484.05 in attorneys' fees to satisfy the Order, along with the $1,202.00 in costs incurred by the Court.
13. The conduct of Mr. Clinton, found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, was motivated by a desire to protect himself from the embarrassment of his own conduct.
14. The conduct of Mr. Clinton found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, collectively and singularly, violated the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c),(d).
15 Mr. Clinton's conduct found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, constitutes "Serious Misconduct" as defined by Section 7B(3) of the Procedures, which defines "serious misconduct" as conduct involving "dishonesty, deceit, fraud and misrepresentation by the lawyer."16. Mr. Clinton's conduct found and adjudged by Judge Wright in the Order, damages the legal profession and demonstrates a lack of overall fitness to hold a license to practice law.
WHEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN, the Plaintiff prays for a judgment of this Court specifically finding that William Jefferson Clinton, Arkansas Bar ID#73019, has conducted himself in a manner that violates the Model Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the Arkansas Supreme Court; that Mr. Clinton's conduct warrants disbarment by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which would result in an Order from the Arkansas Supreme Court removing the name of William Jefferson Clinton from the registry of licensed attorneys maintained by the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court; and for Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs and all other relief to which it may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES A. NEAL, Executive Director of the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, PLAINTIFF
BY:
Marie-Bernarde Miller, Esq. - #84107
GILL ELROD RAGON OWEN SKINNER & SHERMAN, P.A.
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 8801
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
BY:
Lynn Williams, Esq. - #83183
Litigation Counsel
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct
Justice Building, Room 2200
625 Marshall Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
--and a little more on subject.
att Glavin is president of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, which filed papers back in April to have the President Clinton disbarred.
Lopez: How significant was yesterday?s ruling?
Matt Glavin: I think it was enormously significant for a number of reasons. First of all, it was a very sad day for America. It?s a shame that the President of the United States of America has to be brought up on ethics charges. Second, what the committee did was send a very, very loud message to every attorney in America that, regardless of who you are and what position you hold, you must follow the rule of law and the code of professional conduct for attorneys. If you don?t you will be held accountable. Third, a very loud message was sent to the American people, reassuring the American people that lawyers will indeed discipline themselves and will preserve the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that the process does not included lawyers who lie under oath and obstruct justice. So, yes, it was a very important decision.
Lopez: Were you surprised by their recommendation?
Glavin: It was actually a ruling, not a recommendation. They are now proceeding forward with disbarment proceedings. So, it?s more than a recomendation. It was a ruling if you read the letter carefully.
Were we surprised? No, we argued for this. We weren?t surprised for two reasons: 1) The precedent ? regardless of what David Kendall and the president say ? in Arkansas is very clear. The Supreme Court said in a case less than two years ago that there is simply no place in the law for a man or a woman who cannot or will not tell the truth, even when his or her own interests are involved. And then the Court concluded by saying the attributes of honesty and candor are absolute prerequisites to the admission to our bar. Not sometimes. Not for some people. The attributes of honesty and candor are absolute prerequisites. And with that standard and with the guidelines that the American Bar Association provides. There are a number that are appropriate in this case, but just one says, ?Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer with the intent to deceive the Court makes a false statement. So, when you look at the ABA guidelines, when you look at the standard set by the Arkansas Supreme Court, then no, we were not surprised by this decision at all. Indeed, it was the only decision that the committee could make.
