No question that it would have been better, in all kinds of ways and for all kinds of reasons, to have not included the ad hominem attacks.
The unfortunate part was that after the fact, when he had calmed down, he quickly admitted he had screwed up (let emotion get in the way of common sense and better judgment) and unconditionally apologized. Too that point, this was not a public event.
They used his apology as the evidence to suspend him rather than just reprimand him, publicly. Something to the effect of: "His quick acknowledgment of wrong doing is indicative of his intent to do wrong in the first place."
IMO, a public reprimand would have been more than sufficient for this very fine, first time offender.
There is little he said that most lawyers (even the judges at whom this was directed) have not thought, said privately, or written into a motion before it was edited and filed. In some respects, he became a martyr for the frustration we sometimes feel with the idiocy of some court rulings and opinions. That doesn't make what he wrote and did defensible, but it sure does make it more of a "there but for the grace of God, go I."
Of course, my view on this is probably biased because I have written similar stuff I really wanted to send (but didn't) and because he was a friend.
Troy
Troy
Those who shoot from the hip usually end up just shooting themselves.
Plan the grub and grub the plan.
Where is the party tonight? Who is bringng the drinks?
