Supreme Court suspends former judge's law license
Posted: Saturday, March 29, 2008
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday suspended a former judge's license to practice law after he was charged with second-offense drunken driving and made critical comments to the press about the judge overseeing his case.
The Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board brought the action against James A. Weaver, who served as an associate judge from 1982-2004. The court's Grievance Commission found that Weaver violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and recommended a three-month suspension.
The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the commission's finding.
"Weaver's misconduct brought shame upon attorneys, judges, and the court system in general," the supreme court wrote in its ruling.
Weaver, of Muscatine, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in April 2005. He was fined $1,500 and committed to the Iowa Department of Corrections for two years. The court ordered him to be immediately placed in alcohol treatment, then on parole after he completed the program.
Weaver appealed his judgment and sentence to the Iowa Court of Appeals saying the judge abused his discretion. The appeals court rejected the argument.
The Grievance Commission determined that the drunken driving offense was considered a violation of a rule that prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law.
It also maintained that comments Weaver made to a newspaper reporter questioning the judge's motives in imposing the sentence constituted ethical violations because Weaver made a false accusation against a judge.
The Supreme Court said the matter raised free speech issues and how they apply to what a lawyer says about a judge. The court added that it is the first time it has addressed the issue of what standard to use when deciding whether an attorney's statements about a judicial officer are protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
While normally a false statement would be protected under the constitution unless it's made with malice, the court determined that the disciplinary system calls for a less stringent standard. It said Weaver didn't have an objectively reasonable basis to make his statements about the judge.
"Consequently, Weaver acted in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of his statement and thereby forfeited the protection of the First Amendment," the court wrote.
Weaver had argued that he had no history of making disrespectful or false statements about other attorneys or judges, and that he made the statements as a litigant, not as an attorney.
The Iowa Supreme Court Disciplinary Board brought the action against James A. Weaver, who served as an associate judge from 1982-2004. The court's Grievance Commission found that Weaver violated the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers and recommended a three-month suspension.
The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with the commission's finding.
"Weaver's misconduct brought shame upon attorneys, judges, and the court system in general," the supreme court wrote in its ruling.
Weaver, of Muscatine, pleaded guilty and was sentenced in April 2005. He was fined $1,500 and committed to the Iowa Department of Corrections for two years. The court ordered him to be immediately placed in alcohol treatment, then on parole after he completed the program.
Weaver appealed his judgment and sentence to the Iowa Court of Appeals saying the judge abused his discretion. The appeals court rejected the argument.
The Grievance Commission determined that the drunken driving offense was considered a violation of a rule that prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the fitness to practice law.
It also maintained that comments Weaver made to a newspaper reporter questioning the judge's motives in imposing the sentence constituted ethical violations because Weaver made a false accusation against a judge.
The Supreme Court said the matter raised free speech issues and how they apply to what a lawyer says about a judge. The court added that it is the first time it has addressed the issue of what standard to use when deciding whether an attorney's statements about a judicial officer are protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
While normally a false statement would be protected under the constitution unless it's made with malice, the court determined that the disciplinary system calls for a less stringent standard. It said Weaver didn't have an objectively reasonable basis to make his statements about the judge.
"Consequently, Weaver acted in reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of his statement and thereby forfeited the protection of the First Amendment," the court wrote.
Weaver had argued that he had no history of making disrespectful or false statements about other attorneys or judges, and that he made the statements as a litigant, not as an attorney.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
