https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/drb/drbpubhearingrpt.pdf
NJ proceedings against Jacob Hafter

Bill Clinton was not disbarred. He was given a 5-year suspension.

True. On the surface a 5 year suspension is 10 times more severe than a six month suspension.

But in the example used, the real life impact, to the person facing the far lighter suspension, is actually much more severe.

Mr. Hafter's sentence may essentially deprive him of his right to earn a livelihood of any real substance in the next six months, if, like most attorneys, he is not fully trained or qualified in any other career or profession that would enable him to earn an income which remotely approaches the income he could earn as an attorney.

So, this is(presumably) a huge, real-life, blow to Mr. Hafter.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was a two term U.S.President, who I doubt gave a shit that he could no longer practice law in Arkansas(which he apparently had no intent to ever return to).

Once he learned that none of this would cause him to be removed from office, and he would not face criminal prosecution, he was(I bet) ecstatic that the only real "sentence" is that he can't practice law in Arkansas.

Also, on a separate matter, although I am not taking up for Mr. Hafter, I still have to wonder. The fact that he has stepped on some toes, and does not appear to have won many friends in the legal community, may well color the perspective of any disciplinary proceedings against him. Even if you have a panel where all members try valiantly to only concentrate on the specific alleged violations before them, and not what they know(or think they know) about the attorney, it is often difficult to separate the conduct form the individual. But that must be the goal at all times.

If this case involved the precise same conduct, but involved a widely well-liked attorney who has a lot of good will in the legal community, it is not difficult to imagine the result would have been less severe. But because it involved Mr. Hafter, I bet that no matter how fair and impartial each board member convinced themselves they were trying to be, they were distracted by thoughts entering their mind such as Mr.Hafter accusing one or more sitting judges of religious bias, etc.

@ 2:52– Hafter's suspension has nothing to do with him being a pompous ass (although the fact that he was so recalcitrant that he apparently decided to not argue for a SINGLE mitigating factor might be). To your point, there have been widely well-liked attorneys who have a lot of good will in the legal community, who have done good deeds instead of thumbing their nose at the Bar and who have been good citizens who have been dealt with MUCH more severely than Mr. Hafter. The fact is that the Findings of Fact are by the Panel; the discipline is really de novo by the Nevada Supreme Court. Having been involved representing attorneys in discipline matters, Mr. Hafter should be thanking his lucky stars that the wheel of fortunes for lying and obstructing judicial proceedings about his assets did not come up far more severe. Mr. Hafter's suspension had little to do with Vega and everything to do with lying about his assets and income.

In fact Mr. Hafter should thank his lucky stars that his discipline did not come up ONE DAY longer, which would have meant a substantially different sentence. People do not realize that a suspension of 6 months is really 6 months and $2500 suspension fee. A suspension of 6 months and 1 day is 6 months and one day before you have to file a Petition for Reinstatement which takes on average another 7 months and costs $5000 ($2500 suspension and $2500 reinstatement) so 6 month & 1day suspensions are really 13 month suspensions. Think about that before you trust the State Bar to deal with you fairly.

I have difficulty with the decision indicating that Hafter's opinions are not protected speech because his opinions are supposedly factually wrong.

First, Hafter was commenting on an uncontroverted factual occurrence–the judge refused to move the court dates. Second, Hafter offered a (admittedly strong, and to my mind, totally unsupported) opinion that the judge did so based on religious bias, or personal animus to Hafter.

This, no matter how strong, inflammatory, and seemingly unsupported, is an opinion, and not an intentionally erroneous factual assertion. If he stated that the judge, on the record, indicated she was not continuing the trial dates because of animus toward Hafter and/or his religion that would be an unprotected, intentionally erroneous factual assertion of a very material nature.

But he did not say that. He merely offered his view of what he thought the judge's motivations were. The decision seems to indicate that he is only entitled to his opinion if he offers all the facts of what occurred(the judge stating on the record that the dates would not be continued due to inconvenience of expert witnesses, Hafter participating in the original selection of the dates, etc).

I find that to have a very significant chilling effect. I believe state action is satisfied in that he is being disciplined by a governmental subdivision or entity for private speech(albeit publicly expressed).

What was done here would be similar to the following. Let's say my country engages in a war or bloody military campaign. I write a newspaper column concerning the uncontroverted fact that my country went to war, and I offer my negative opinion of such war and the resultant, un-necessary carnage, etc. It is subsequently determined that because I did not disclose all the "facts" advanced by the other side that would supposedly render my opinion "wrong" in the eyes of many(e.g. the other country violated some treaty provision, or whatever)that my opinion is not protected speech.

So, because Hafter offered his opinion without completely disclosing all the "facts" that the opposing side argues would render Hafter's opinion largely invalid(e.g.the judge stating the scheduling challenges as the basis for declining the continuance) his opinion is therefore not protected speech?

By way of example, when was the last time any attorney in a hotly contested case, or any journalist wring a column he/she strongly believes in, disclosed all the arguments, or even all the supposed facts, of the other side that might tend to discredit such argument? Like..perhaps…never

Or the Supreme Court. I used to really respect them. The last 3 years have shown what complete hackjobs they often do. At least at the District Court level you can pat your client on the head and can assert that the mess has a chance to be fixed on appeal. But some of the results coming out of Carson City are just jawdroppers, things where we have been left gesticulating because quite clearly the Court never reviewed the ROA and just ruled from the Docketing Statement.

And then there are the private arbitrations. We have started removing any ADR clauses because you truly do leave yourself without any remedy and then without any record. If I cannot get more transactional work, I am at the risk of Hari Kari.

@10:45 that's what I would have said 10 years ago. But when you have clients, judges that won't stay your case pending a writ (because their decision was not a final judgment), expenses, and the likelihood the judge will rule the same when you file a MSJ at the end of the case, your client may not want to run to the NVSC every time a state court judge gets the law wrong.

10:45, I would appeal, especially if expense is no object, and you have a jury trial. The NSC will reverse, at least in my experiences.

If you don't grant the stay for appeal, then the judge is an asshole. Ask the Supreme Court for it.

No. No. Shit, no, man. I do believe you'd get your ass kicked saying something like that, man.