Patterico's Pontifications


Yagman Sued, Whining That It Violated His Rights to Suspend His Law License for Getting Convicted of More Than a Dozen Felonies

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Scum — Patterico @ 9:19 pm

The APpublished in the San Jose Mercury News — reports:

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a prominent civil-rights lawyer’s suit against the State Bar of California over the interim suspension of his law license.

Stephen Yagman, who had high-profile cases against police and President Bush, alleged the bar violated his constitutional and civil rights by suspending him from practicing law in the state in July.

Well, August, actually. But who’s counting?

So, you get convicted of more than a dozen felonies, and it’s a violation of your rights to suspend you from practicing law?

Did someone repeal Rule 11? (For non-lawyers, that’s the rule that theoretically allows judges to sanction lawyers for frivolous lawsuits.)

Yeah, I know it hardly ever gets used. That’s part of the problem.

By the way: why am I reading about this in the San Jose Mercury News? Where’s the L.A. Times? Do they run only pro-Yagman stories?

8 Responses to “Yagman Sued, Whining That It Violated His Rights to Suspend His Law License for Getting Convicted of More Than a Dozen Felonies”

  1. Patterico – I am glad that you italicized Rule 11, and pointed out that it only theoretically allows for sanctions).

    JD (eadb61)

  2. Does the constitution guarantee a right for convicted felons to practice law? I so didn’t know practicing law was a “right”.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  3. Christoph – In the modern vernacular often employed by the Leftists, what traditionally has been called a privilege has magically transformed into a right. Actual Rights are privileges. Up is down. Cubs are Cardinals. Bellicheat is a good guy.

    JD (eadb61)

  4. ↑ Or, following surgery, man becomes woman.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  5. Oh hey, I’ll bet that fine EX DA Nifong is bitching as well, seems he just got served with a 400 page lawsuit, well he and 45 of his enablers!

    Kibbles and bits and lots of discussion.

    Reading just some of the stuff in the suit for sure makes you desire to see some very serious results for many.

    TC (1cf350)

  6. When are the proceedings for full disbarment to occur?

    mojo (8096f2)

  7. So, for Mr Yagman to sue, doesn’t he need a real lawyer to handle his case?

    Dana (3e4784)

  8. I must’ve missed this before, but Yagman was suspended from the practice of
    law for six months in 1989 and basically for the entire year in 1999. (It looks
    like those suspensions were for violations committed years prior; my guess is that
    he litigated those cases vigorously.)

    The state bar’s disbarment proceedings have historically been, “Disbarment
    for five years and until you prove you have become a better human being,” which
    was sometimes successful. The state has a new process for permanent disbarments
    for serial or very serious malfeasers.

    I have to believe Yagman will qualify. A permanent disbarment appears richly deserved.


    JRM (de6363)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0780 secs.