All judges, at the base of it, are people. Being people, they can be accused of a crime by any other people. Since the disbarred attorney is no longer an officer of the court via his disbarring, and if he is certain the men/women who disbarred him acted wrongly, can't he bring a case against them just like any other person, to get compensation for being wronged?
Once again, judges do not disbar people, the state bar does. The bar is 100% independent of the court system & judges.
And, no in most (all?) states disbarred lawyers cannot sue the bar association for the action of disbarring them.
-Dave
Isn't the state bar made up of attorneys and judges? Do all state bar people disbar an attorney, or just some of them? Nobody is talking about suing the BAR Association. The suit is a claim for relief against the men/women who did what they did in their acting as BAR people.
The BAR Association does nothing without some people doing it under the guise of BAR members. Don't sue the BAR. Sue the people in their capacity as people.
If you are an attorney who earns $500,000 a year, those PEOPLE who disbarred you, causing you to lose $hundreds of thousands a year, better have had their ducks in a row (same as you in your suit), or they could lose their funds as people, not as BAR Association members... and maybe even jail time.
Complaints and claims are two different critters in court. Complaints might get someone disbarred, but a claim could get him his funds back. His best bet would be to file against the people separately, each in a separate claim. This way if one failed, it would not necessarily be failure of them all (depending on what the claims were).
So we're going back to the "All you have to do is say your aren't a person in court and then they can't lock you up " logic, huh.
Well, no, not exactly. Unless you are an experienced debater, you don't say anything. You carefully write your paperwork, and then constantly refer to it.
Depending on the particular circumstances, you make it really simple for the court. Suppose that Jane stole Tarzan's bone, and Tarzan wanted to get it back. He might take her to court like this, with this simple claim:
----------
NOTICE
Tarzan, man wronged
by
Jane, woman wrongdoer.
Man, Tarzan have bone.
Woman, Jane steal bone.
Return bone to man, Tarzan, plus court costs, and other expenses in the amount of an additional bone.
See exhibit A (picture of bone).
Signed, man, Tarzan
_x .
----------
There's the claim. Simple as that.
If the judge asks who the attorney is, or if Tarzan is acting pro se, Tarzan's answer is 'no' to both. "Am present."
If the judge won't let Tarzan stand present without representation, he is contradicting himself. Tarzan was placed on the docket when he presented his paperwork to the clerk of the court. In other words, the judge said 'yes' then, but 'no' once it came to court time. Tarzan has a claim against the man acting as judge, which he can file in a higher court, with a higher judge.
I could write all day about possible happenings in court, but this should be enough to give you the picture. The simple point is, let the paperwork do the talking. Don't deviate from it.
