transcripts

AND CALL THE
LAST CASE THIS MORNING AS
FLORIDA BAR V MORGAN.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THE CASE OF
FLORIDA BAR VERSUS MORGAN.
GOOD MORNING.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS FRED HADDAD,
REPRESENTING ATTORNEY MORGAN
WHO IS SEATED HERE IN A MATTER
WHERE THE FLORIDA BAR HAS
ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION THAT
MR. MORGAN BE SUSPENDED FROM
THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR 91
DAYS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT THE COURT TODAY,
ORDERED ORAL ARGUMENT.
IT, ALSO, ORDERED MR. MORGAN
TO APPEAR PERSONALLY.
YES, MA'AM.
CHIEF JUSTICE: IS HE SEATED
AT COUNSEL TABLE?
YES, MA'AM.
CHIEF JUSTICE: HE IS
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
IF WE WANT TO DIRECT QUESTIONS
TO HIM?
ABSOLUTELY.
JUSTICE: I HAVE A QUESTION.
YES, SIR.
JUSTICE: WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
MR. MORGAN COMING BEFORE THIS
COURT.
I HAVE READ THIS, THE
TRANSCRIPT THAT BRINGS US TO
HERE PRIMARILY TODAY, WHICH IS,
BEGINS THAT THE COURT SAID, MR.
MORGAN, I WANT YOU TO, MR.
MORGAN, I AM MOVING FOR A
MISTRIAL.
THE COURT, MR. MORGAN, I AM
NOT GOING TO, MR. MORGAN SAID,
DON'T TREAT ME LIKE THAT IN
FRONT OF A JURY!
THE COURT, I SUSTAIN THE
OBJECTION, AND YOU.
MR. MORGAN, NO JUDGE TREATS ME
LIKE THAT IN FRONT IN FRONT OF
A JURY, AND THEN IT GOES ON,
AND IT IS QUITE, READS AS QUITE
AN ANGRY DISCOURSE BETWEEN THE
COURT.
YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUSTICE: MR. HADDAD, AS YOU
KNOW, I HAVE READ THIS WITH
GREAT CONCERN, BECAUSE I
PRACTICED LAW IN THIS STATE AS
A TRIAL LAWYER FOR 30 YEARS
BEFORE, AND A NUMBER OF MY
COLLEAGUES AS TRIAL LAWYERS,
AND I HAVE READ THIS
TRANSCRIPT, AND AND I HAVE NOT
NOT IN MY 30 YEARS OF PRACTICE,
READ ANYTHING THAT IS AS
DISRESPECTFUL OF THE COURT, AND
SO MY QUESTION OF YOUR CLIENT,
IS, DOES HE WANT TO CONTINUE TO
PRACTICE LAW IN THIS STATE?
BECAUSE THIS KIND OF CONDUCT IS
NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED!
AT LEAST BY THIS MEMBER OF THE
COURT.
AND SO I THINK HE NEEDS TO
EXPLAIN TO US, THROUGH YOU OR
THROUGH HIMSELF, AS TO WHETHER
HE REALLY WANTS TO PRACTICE LAW
IN THIS STATE OR NOT.
MAY I TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO
RESPOND TO THAT?
JUSTICE: YES, SIR.
I HAVE PRACTICED OVER 30
YEARS, AND MR. MORGAN STARTED
OUT WITH ME WHEN I HIRED HIM AS
LAW CLERK.
HE SINCE WENT ON HIS OWN.
MR. MORGAN IS CONSIDERED TO
BE, AS THE STATEMENTS IN
SANCTIONS HEARING PRESENT, A
VERY EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE, A VERY
EXCELLENT LAWYER WHO CAN BE
PUSHED UNFORTUNATELY, AND AT
TIMES IS INTEMPERATE.
WHAT I THINK JUSTICE WELLS, THE
RECORD DOES NOT SHOW IN THE
INTERPRETS AND SOME OF IT, IF
THE COURT WOULD REFER TO THE
APPENDIX, THAT IS ATTACHED TO
THE FLORIDA BAR, IS WHAT
PRECEDED WHAT I CAN ONLY
CHARACTERIZE AS AN OUTBURST.
I AM NOT GOING TO TRY TO
DIMINISH IT.
JUSTICE: MR. HADDAD, MY
CONCERN IS THAT THIS SYSTEM,
AND I HAVE READ THE WHOLE
TRANSCRIPT.
YES, SIR.
JUSTICE: THIS SYSTEM DEPENDS
ON OFFICERS OF THE COURT,
LAWYERS, AMONG ALL, EVERYONE
ELSE IN THIS SOCIETY,
RESPECTING NOT THE INDIVIDUAL
BUT RESPECTING THE POSITION OF
THE JUDGE!
BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOT TO RESPECT
THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT
THIS WHOLE THING DEPENDS UPON,
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A
LAWYER THAT TAKES ON A JUDGE
LIKE THIS, IS SHOWING THAT KIND
OF RESPECT!
LIKE I SAID, I HAVE APPEARED
HERE 32 YEARS AGO FOR THE FIRST
TIME BEFORE THIS COURT, AND I
HAVE BEEN APPEARING BEFORE
NUMEROUS COURTS.
I HAVE THAT RESPECT.
HOWEVER, I ALSO PRACTICE,
PRETTY MUCH SOLELY, CRIMINAL
LAW.
I TRY TO TEMPER WHAT I
SAY OR SAVE IT FOR OUTSIDE THE
COURTROOMS, BUT THERE ARE TIMES
WHEN A PERSON IS REPRESENTING AN
INDIVIDUAL, AND WE HAVE CITED
CASES ABOUT EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY,
WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN LEWD
ADVOCACY AND I AM NOT TRYING TO
SAY IT IS NOT DIFFERENT.
HOWEVER, WHEN A PERSON IS
INVITED AS MR. MORGAN WAS IN
THIS INSTANCE TO PRESENT A
PROFFER, THEN IS TOLD TO NOT
PRESENT A PROFFER, HE ASKS
PROPERLY TO TAKE THE JURY OUT
BECAUSE ONE CANNOT MAKE A
PROFFER IN FRONT AFTER JURY.
JUSTICE: I DON'T THINK IT IS
GOING TO TRY TO BE FRUITFUL TO
EXCUSE THE BEHAVIOR.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
YOU DON'T CONTEST HERE, THE
FINDINGS OF WHAT ACTUALLY
OCCURRED.
CORRECT?
NO.
DID YOU CONTEST BELOW,
BEFORE THE REFEREE, THE
FINDINGS OF WHAT ACTUALLY
OCCURRED OR WAS THERE AN
ADMISSION THAT HE ACTUALLY
COMMITTED THIS CONDUCT?
WELL, JUSTICE CANTERO, I AM
NOT CONDONING WHAT OCCURRED.
I THINK MR. MORGAN IN HIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE BAR AS
WELL AS IN HIS DEPOSITION,
ADMITTED THAT HIS REMARKS WERE
INTEMPERATE.
HE WENT TOO FAR AND HE WISHED
HE HADN'T DONE T.
SO THE ONLY THING YOU
CONSIDER CONTESTING BEFORE US
IS THE DISCIPLINE, CORRECT?
WE ARE CONTESTING, AND THE
ONLY REASON I BROUGHT ALL OF THESE
MATTERS OUT IN THE BRIEF IS THE
SANCTITY OF TWO JUDGES, THE
PROSECUTOR AND LAWYERS, AS TO
HIS EFFECTIVENESS AS A LAWYER,
THE JUDGES CONSIDERED THE BEST
JUDGES IN BROWARD COUNTY WHO
TESTIFIED THAT THEY HAVE NEVER
HAD AN ISSUE WITH MR. MORGAN.
JUSTICE: QUITE FRANKLY I
THINK THAT IS AN AGGRAVATING
FACTOR, RATHER THAN A MITIGATING
FACTOR, IF SOMEBODY IS AN
EFFECTIVE ADVOCATE, SHOULD KNOW
BETTER THAN TO DO THIS CONDUCT,
BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, YOU ARE
ONLY CONTESTING THE DISCIPLINE,
CORRECT?
WE ARE CONTESTING THE
DISCIPLINE, YES.
JUSTICE: IS THAT 91 DAYS?
YES.
JUSTICE: WHAT IS THE
DISCIPLINE THAT YOU BELIEVE
SHOULD BE IMPOSE HAD?
I THOUGHT MYSELF SOMEWHERE
AROUND 30-TO-60 DAYS.
I HAVE READ WASSERMAN AND ALL
OF THE CASES CITED BY THE BAR
AS WELL AS THE CASES CITED
WITHIN THE BAR.
IN WASSERMAN THERE WERE
INTEMPERATE REMARKS MADE TO A
JUDGE, PERHAPS NOT AS BAD AS
THIS, WHERE THE PERSON TOLD THE
CLIENT IN THE COURTROOM OR
OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, YOU ARE
NOT GOING TO OBEY THAT JUDGE'S
ORDER.
WASSERMAN THEN CONFRONTED A
JUDICIAL ASSISTANT AND USED A
NUMBER OF 13-LETTER WORDS,
FOUR-LETTER WORDS AND
OTHER-LETTER WORDS, TO DENY
GRATE THE JUDICIAL ASSISTANT --
TO DENIGRATE JUDICIAL
ASSISTANT, BUT THE MOST
EGREGIOUS THE COURT FOUND
BEFORE A 91-DAY SUSPENSION,
BEFORE HIS FOUR PRIOR PROBLEMS
AND REPRIMANDS, WAS THAT HE
LIED.
THE OTHER ONES, HE TRIED TO
MITIGATE AND LIE AND SAY EITHER
HE DIDN'T SAY IT OR IF HE DID
SAY IT THAT SHE MISHEARD HIM
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE WAS HANGING UP
THE PHONE.
IF YOU GO TO KILMAN, THE
PERSON PUBLICLY ACCUSED THE
JUDGE OF TAKING BRIBES FROM THE
OPPONENT.
IN OTHER CASES, THEY FILED RICO
SUITS.
CHIEF LET ME JUST GO HERE, WE
ARE NOT DEALING WITH A ONE-TIME
OUTBURST.
HE HAD TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS OR
SIMILAR CONDUCT INVOLVING
DISRESPECTFUL CONDUCT TOWARDS
THE JUDICIARY.
ONE WAS THAT HE MADE SEVERAL INTEMPERATE AND
DEROGATORY REMARKS
TO AND ABOUT THE JUDICIARY IN
1995 AND 1996 AND THEN ALSO
WHILE APPEARING AS ATTORNEY OF
RECORD, HE MADE THE STATEMENT,
WHAT IS A JUDGE?
EDUCATE ME.
15 YEARS PRACTICING CRIMINAL.
I CAN READ.
I KNOW MORE LAW THAN YOU WILL
EVER FORGET.
TELL ME WHAT IT IS AND LET ME
ASK YOU SOMETHING, DO YOU KNOW
WHAT IT IS LIKE TO DEFEND
SOMEONE'S LIBERTY AND HAVE THE
COURT BLOW YOU OFF ENTIRELY TO
SOMEONE'S ARGUABLE DEFENSE?
THIS IS A PATTERN OF SOMEBODY,
NOT EFFECTIVE ADVOCACY, AS
JUSTICE WELLS SAYS, SEEMS TO BE
A CAREER OF BEING DISRESPECTFUL
TO MEMBERS OF THE COURT.
NOW, YOU KNOW, WE MAY BE
IRRITATING YOU RIGHT NOW, MR.
HADDAD.
I SORT OF SUSPECT THAT YOU MAY
GO OUT AND SAY SOMETHING ABOUT
US TO YOURSELF OR TO YOUR
CLIENT, BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING
TO SAY IT IN OPEN COURT.
I CAN'T IMAGINE AFTER PEER
REVIEW SO MANY TYPES IN THE
FOURTH DISTRICT, THAT I WOULD
SAY ANYTHING.
YOU HAVE GOT ME THERE.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE
TRUE.
I MEAN, WE HAVE ALL DONE THIS A
LONG TIME.
YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.
I DON'T THINK IT IS A CAREER OF
WHAT HE HAS DONE.
IT HAS HAPPENED THREE TIMES.
I AM NOT DENYING THAT.
FIVE YEARS APART.
IT IS ALMOST AS IF EVERY FIVE
YEARS HE HAS THIS BRAIN LAPSE
OR SOMETHING.
JUSTICE: WHAT DOES IT TAKE
TO STOP IT?
THAT IS THE QUESTION.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO STOP THAT?
NO ONE IS ARGUING THE
GENTLEMAN'S ABILITY AS A
LAWYER, DEDICATION TO CLIENTS.
THIS IS NOT IN THAT CATEGORY,
BUT WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO REIN
IN THE ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, IS
REALLY ALL WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT.
WHAT I SUGGESTED IN LESS
THAN 91 DAYS, IT IS MORE THAN
AN ECONOMIC FACTOR.
HE IS A SOLE PRACTITIONER.
IN 30-60 DAYS, IT IS GOING TO
DEVASTATE HIM.
WE DIDN'T GET TO, WE TESTIFIED
ABOUT HIS CHILD.
HE IS A SOLO
PARENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT,
BUT I THINK THE 60-DAY
SUSPENSION IS GOING TO
DEVASTATE AND TEACH HIM, AND I
THINK THE PUBLICITY OF THIS AS
OPPOSED TO THE OTHERS, IS
SOMETHING THAT HE IS CERTAINLY
GOING TO REMEMBER.
NO MATTER HOW IT IS, WHEN YOU
MAKE A MISTAKE AS LAWYER, WHEN
YOU MAKE A MISTAKE AS A LAWYER
IT IS EMBARRASSING TO HAVE
EVERYBODY KNOW T I KNOW A
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN BROWARD
COUNTY ARE WATCHING THIS ON
CLOSED CIRCUIT, BECAUSE A
NUMBER OF PEOPLE KNOW MR.
MORGAN.
MR. MORGAN, WE ARE GOING TO
WATCH IT.
THAT IS EMBARRASSING RIGHT
THERE, TO HEAR JUSTICES TALK
ABOUT HIS BEHAVIOR, NO MATTER
HOW EFFECTIVE AN ADVOCATE IS,
IS DEVASTATING FOR A LAWYER.
JUSTICE: AT THIS POINT WHERE
HE HAS TWO PRIOR FINDINGS OF
THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR, DOES IT
COME TO THE POINT WHERE, IN
ORDER TO REINSTATE HIM INTO THE
BAR, THE COURT HAS TO, AND THE
BAR NEED TO HAVE SOME COMFORT
LEVEL THAT HE HAS BEEN
REHABILITATED AND THAT HE IS
REMORSEFUL FOR HIS PRIOR
CONDUCT AND HAS DETERMINED NOT
TO PURSUE THAT ANY FURTHER.
WE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL YEARS
SINCE THIS HAPPENED.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A
MITIGATION --
JUSTICE: I GUESS THAT IS
GOING TO BE A QUESTION WHETHER
HE EVER GETS READMITTED IF HE
IS SUSPENDED.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT IT HAS
BEEN PUT A STOP TO BY NOW.
JUSTICE: HAS HE EVER TRIED
ANGER MANAGEMENT?
WE ARE TRYING TO
STRUGGLE HERE WITH HOW IS THIS
GOING TO CHANGE?
IF WE GIVE HIM A 30-DAY
SUSPENSION, TEN-DAY SUSPENSION,
WHATEVER, HOW IS IT GOING TO
CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR?
I THINK JUSTICE QUINCE, IN
ALL CANDOR, IF THE COURT WERE
TO GIVE HIM A SUSPENSION THAT
IS LIVABLE AND ORDER AS A
CONDITION OF THAT SUSPENSION,
SOME TYPE OF ANGER MANAGEMENT,
EVEN IF HE GETS REINSTATED
BEFORE THAT IS COMPLETED, AS
PROBATIONARY.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I AM GOING TO
STOP YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE IN
YOUR REBUTTAL AND HEAR FROM THE
BAR, AND MY SUGGESTION MIGHT
BE, BECAUSE THE COURT IS
STRUGGLING, THAT YOU MAY WANT
TO HAVE MR. MORGAN COME UP ON
REBUTTAL, SO WE CAN HEAR FROM
HIM WHETHER HE IS REMORSEFUL,
WHETHER HE IS TAKING STEPS TO
MAKE SURE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN
AGAIN.
YES, MA'AM.
CHIEF JUSTICE: OKAY.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MICHAEL SOIFER FOR THE FLORIDA
BAR.
THE REHABILITATIVE SUSPENSION
THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BITE
REFEREE IN THIS CASE IS
REASONABLE -- RECOMMENDED BY
THE REFEREE IN THIS CASE IS
REASONABLE AND WARRANTED.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE
EGREGIOUSNESS OF THE MISCONDUCT
AND YOU FACTOR IN THE FOUR
AGGRAVATING FACTORS, THE PRIOR
DISCIPLINE WHICH THE REFEREE
FOUND WAS THE MOST SERIOUS, AS
WELL AS THE REFUSAL TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE NATURE OF HIS
MISCONDUCT, WHICH WAS, ALSO,
SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE
REFEREE, AND IT IS INTERESTING,
BECAUSE REFEREE LUBET PRESIDED
OVER ALL THREE OF THE
DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS, AND IN
HER FIRST REPORT OF REFEREE,
SHE LISTENED TO MR. MORGAN
EXCUSE HIS MISCONDUCT THAT
FIRST TIME BY SAYING THAT HE
WAS REMORSEFUL AND BY SAYING
THAT HE WAS JUST TRYING TO
ZEALOUSLY REPRESENT HIS CLIENT.
AND SHE NOTED THAT, AT THE
MITIGATING FACTOR IN THAT FIRST
REPORT OF REFEREE, AND HE SAID
IT BUT HE DIDN'T DO IT.
IT HAPPENED AGAIN, AND THAT
FIRST TIME HE WAS GIVEN A
PUBLIC REPRIMAND BEFORE THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS, AND YOU
WOULD THINK THAT BEING
PERSONALLY REPRIMANDED IN FRONT
OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS WOULD
HAVE SOME EFFECT TO MAKE HIM
CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR BUT IT
DIDN'T, AND IT HAPPENED AGAIN
THE SECOND TIME, AND HE WAS
GIVEN A TEN-DAY SUSPENSION AND
REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE FLORIDA
BAR'S ETHICS SCHOOL.
AND THAT DIDN'T WORK.
AND THAT IS WHY THIS TIME WE
HAVE THE THIRD INCIDENT OF THE
EXACT SAME MISCONDUCT, AND THAT
IS WHY A REHABILITATIVE
SUSPENSION IS ABSOLUTELY
WARRANTED IN THIS CASE.
AND I, WASSERMAN IS THE
AUTHORITY FOR THAT, BECAUSE IN
WASSERMAN YOU HAVE SIMILAR
MISCONDUCT.
IN FACT I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IT
IS STRIKINGLY SIMILAR IN THE
WASSERMAN CASE, HE POUNDED ON
THE TABLE AND HE YELLED TO THE
COURT.
IN THIS CASE THE RESPONDENT
YELLED TO THE COURT WHILE HE
PACED BACK AND FORTH.
IN THE WASSERMAN CASE, HE
VERBALIZED HIS CON TEMPT FOR
THE COURT.
IN THIS CASE THE RESPONDENT
CALLED THE JUDGE OBNOXIOUS.
HE REFERRED TO HIM AS JUDGE
GLARE BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THE
JUDGE WAS GLARING AT HIM.
HE REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER OF
THE JUDGE TO MOVE ON WITH THE
CASE.
HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE THE
RELEVANCE OBJECTION RULING,
ALTHOUGH JUDGE COLLINS HAD TO
REITERATE
IT 11 TIMES FOR THE RECORD.
CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THIS JUDGE
BOBBY COLLINS?
JUSTICE: DID HE FIND HIM IN
CONTEMPT?
WASSERMAN DOES NOT REQUIRE
THAT.
THERE WERE TWO SEPARATE CASES.
THE MATTER INVOLVING THE
TELEPHONE CALL WITH THE
JUDICIAL ASSISTANT IS THE ONE
THAT BROUGHT HIM INTO CONTEMPT.
THE OTHER CASE WAS ENTIRELY
SEPARATE, AND THAT INVOLVED HIS
CONDUCT IN THE COURTROOM, AND
WASSERMAN WAS NOT FOUND IN
CONTEMPT IN THAT OTHER CASE
INVOLVING HIS CONDUCT IN THE
COURTROOM.
JUSTICE: THE BAR SEES THIS
AS A GRADUATED AND MEASURED
RESPONSE CASE.
THAT IS THAT SIMILAR CONDUCT,
THERE WAS A REPRIMAND, AND THEN
THE NEXT TIME THERE WAS A
SUSPENSION.
WAS IT TEN DAYS' SUSPENSION?
YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUSTICE: AND THAT A MEASURED
RESPONSE TO THE REPRESENTATIVE
CONDUCT, NOW, CALLS FOR
DEMONSTRATING REHABILITATION
AFTER A SUSPENSION.
IS THAT THE THEORY OF THE BAR?
YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUSTICE: WAS THERE ANY, IN
THIS CASE, THERE WAS A, QUITE A
FEW YEARS BETWEEN EACH
INCIDENT, CORRECT?
I BELIEVE THE FIRST INCIDENT
HAPPENED IN 1995 AND 1996.
THE SECOND INCIDENT WAS IN 2000
AND THE THIRD INCIDENT WAS IN
2003.
JUSTICE: SO MY QUESTION IS,
IS THERE ANY INDICATION IN THE
RECORD THAT THESE THINGS WERE
TRIGGERED BY ANYTHING IN
PARTICULAR?
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, AT LEAST
SOME ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE
THAT THESE WERE REALLY ISOLATED
INCIDENTS, AND THAT THERE WAS
SOMETHING THAT TOOK PLACE THAT
REALLY SORT OF TRIGGERED THIS

BEHAVIOR.

IT APPEARS THAT, WHEN THE
RESPONDENT DOES NOT GET HIS WAY
ON A CERTAIN RULING OF THE
COURT, THIS IS HOW HE REACTS,
AND IT IS, AND HE DOES NOT GIVE
UP, AND HE DOES NOT RELENT,
BECAUSE I GUESS HE IS JUST
TRYING TO GET HIS WAY, BUT HE
REDUCES HIS CONDUCT TO NAME
CALLING AND VERBAL ABUSE
TOWARDS THE JUDGE, WHO IS A
AUTHORITY IN THE COURTROOM, AND
THAT TRANSLATES ON DIRECTLY
INTO DISRESPECT FOR THE VERY
AUTHORITY OF THE COURT, AND
THAT IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL
RULES IN A SYSTEM OF LAW, BUT
YET YOU MUST HAVE AUTHORITY,
RESPECT FOR THE AUTHORITY OF
THE COURT.
JUSTICE: IS THERE ANY COMMON
THREAD TO ANY OF THESE, OTHER
THAN THEY OCCUR AND THEY HAVE
SIMILAR LANGUAGE?
I MEAN, ARE THESE THINGS WHERE
THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON IN
A PARTICULAR TYPE OF TRIAL OR
IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY
THAT THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT
THIS IS STAINING THINGS AND
SOILING THE ENTIRE JURY
PROCESS?
OR IS THERE ANY KIND OF COMMON
THREAD TO ANY OF THESE?
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS
THAT COMMON THREAD, YOUR HONOR.
I KNOW THAT THIS PARTICULAR
INCIDENT BEGAN IN FRONT OF THE
JURY.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THE OTHER TWO
PRIOR INCIDENTS OCCURRED IN
FRONT OF A JURY.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE PRIOR
MISCONDUCT IS DISTURBING HERE,
BECAUSE IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT
HE IS NOT DETERRED BY THOSE
EARLIER SANCTIONS.
AND HE IS NOT SHOWN THAT HE IS
ABLE TO REFORM HIS CONDUCT ON
HIS OWN, AND THAT IS WHY A
REHABILITATIVE SUSPENSION IS
CERTAINLY WARRANTED IN THIS
CASE.
THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
JUSTICE: YOU STILL HAVE SOME
TIME LEFT.
WHAT WOULD BE THE REHAB THAT
YOU WOULD SUGGEST?
THAT IS PART OF THIS RATHER
THAN JUST A NEBULOUS REHAB.
I MEAN, WE HAVE GOT A PROBLEM,
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED
TO ADDRESS IT HEAD ON RATHER
THAN SIX MONTHS FROM NOW HAVE
SOME WITNESSES COME IN AND SAY
HE IS BETTER NOW.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THAT IS
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THAT THERE
SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF PLAN, TO
ASSIST IF THERE THIS IS A GOOD
LAWYER THAT IS REPRESENTING
PEOPLE WHO NEED REPRESENTATION,
THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME
KIND OF PLAN FOR THESE TO TRY
TO ADDRESS IF THERE IS
SOMETHING GOING ON IN HIS LIFE
OR WHATEVER.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT
OR DOES THE BAR THINK ABOUT
THESE THINGS?
CERTAINLY WE DO THINK ABOUT
IT.
I KNOW THAT THE SECOND TIME
AROUND, HE WAS REQUIRED TO
ATTEND THE ETHICS SCHOOL, AND I
THINK PART OF IT HAS TO DO WITH
WHAT MR. MORGAN WANTS TO DO
FOR HIMSELF.
I THINK HE NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE
THAT HE HAS THIS PROBLEM, AND I
THINK THAT IS PART OF THE
REHABILITATION PROCESS, WHEN HE
COMES BACK AND REAPPLIES FOR
READMISSION, THAT HE CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT HE HAS TAKEN
SOME AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO HELP
HIMSELF.
CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
REBUTTAL.
YES, MA'AM.
JUSTICE: MR. MORGAN, LET ME
ASK YOU THIS.
CHIEF JUSTICE: JUST SO WE
HAVE THIS FOR THE RECORD.
YOU ARE?
I AM KAYO MORGAN.
JUSTICE: LET ME ASK YOU
THIS.
DO YOU THINK WHAT YOU DID WAS
WRONG?
YES, SIR.
JUSTICE: HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY
STEPS ON YOUR OWN, SINCE AUGUST
OF 2003, TO MAKE, TO CORRECT
IT, TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU
ARE, THAT THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR
BY YOU IS NOT GOING TO GO
FORWARD?
SINCE THAT ENCOUNTER WITH
JUDGE COLLINS, WHO IS A GREAT
GUY, I ONLY WORKED WITH HIM IN
THE CONTEXT OF A COUPLE OF
JUVENILE CASES.
I ONLY HAD ONE JUVENILE TRIAL
WITH HIM.
NEVER HAD A JURY TRIAL WITH THE
MAN.
HE IS A GENTLEMAN, AND HE IS
ALWAYS PLEASANT TO ME.
HE AND I GOT ALONG FAMOUSLY.
AT THAT TIME WHAT INCITED ME
AT THAT TIME WAS HE HE ANNOUNCED
TO OTHER JUDGES THAT HE WAS
GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH ME.
THAT DID UPSET ME TREMENDOUSLY,
IN THE CONTEXT OF IT AT THAT
TRIAL.
SINCE THEN, HOWEVER, I HAVE
BEEN EXTREMELY CIRCUMSPECT WITH
ALL JUDGES AS TO ANY KIND OF
INDICATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS
THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TAINTED IN
SOME FASHION TOWARDS ME, AND I
COULD SAY I AM VERY CIRCUMSPECT
HERE AFTER SINCE THE ENCOUNTER
WITH JUDGE COLLINS ABOUT THAT.
ABOUT THAT.
I HAVE NOT HAD A SINGLE
PROBLEM.
MATTER OF FACT A COUPLE OF
JUDGES, PARTICULARLY JUDGE
BACKMAN, HAS INDICATED THAT I
HAVE CALMED DOWN QUITE A BIT.
CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT DO YOU
THINK THESE OUTBURSTS ARE DUE
TO?
DO YOU HAVE AN ANGER PROBLEM
THAT YOU RECOGNIZE?
AGAIN, AND, YES, I KNOW JUDGE COLLINS
WELL.
I READ THIS TRANSCRIPT, AND IT
REALLY WAS SHOCKING TO READ IT.
WHAT IS YOUR, WHAT, WHERE DOES
IT COME FROM?
WHEN I STARTED PRACTICING
LAW, I WANTED TO BE A VERY
VIGOROUS ADVOCATE.
I HINGE ON THAT, THAT YOU NEED
TO REPRESENT A DEFENDANT.
CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ARE ALL
THAT I DO, AS VIGOROUSLY AS YOU
CAN AND TRY TO LEAVE NO STONE
UNTURNED.
ALTHOUGH I HAVE LEFT MANY A
STONE UNTURNED, I TRY NOT TO.
EVERY NOW AND THEN YOU DO
ENCOUNTER JUDGES WHO APPARENTLY
HAVE AN AND ANIMUS TOWARDS
YOURSELF, PERHAPS YOUR CLIENT
OR THE NATURE OF THE CASE, AND
I BELIEVE THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE
A JUDGE TO TASK, IF THEY DO
APPEAR TO STEP INTO THAT REALM.
I KNOW YOU NEED TO, I TRY TO DO
IT IN, AS TRUNCATED A FASHION
AS I CAN, FOR EXAMPLE WITH
JUDGE COLLINS WHEN I SAW THE
WAY HE WAS LOOKING AT ME.
JUSTICE: DID YOU SAY YOU
NEED TO TAKE A JUDGE TO TASK?
IF A SITUATION IS PRESENTED,
YOU NEED TO DRAW ISSUE WITH IT,
YES, MA'AM.
JUSTICE: DON'T WE HAVE A
PROCESS WHERE YOU CAN CONTACT
THE JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS
COMMISSION, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT
A JUDGE IS ACTING IN A MANNER
THAT IS NOT BEFITTING A JUDGE?
YES, MA'AM.
THEREAFTER, IF IT IS THAT
EGREGIOUS, YES, MA'AM, BUT I AM
TALKING, YOUR HONOR, IN RESPECT
TO IN THE CONTEXT OF A TRIAL
ASSURE REPRESENTING A DEFENDANT.
JUSTICE: IT SEEMS TO ME THAT
THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM.
LAWYERS HAVE GOT TO TREAT THIS
SYSTEM WITH RESPECT!
AND THE SYSTEM SAYS YOU ARE NOT
GOING TO TAKE THE JUDGE TO
TASK.
THE JUDGE CANNOT BE ON TRIAL,
WHETHER IT BE A CRIMINAL COURT,
A JUVENILE COURT, A CIVIL
COURT, A DOMESTIC COURT,
WHATEVER KIND OF COURT IT, YOU
CAN'T TRY THE JUDGE.
I KNOW THAT THERE IS RAMBO
LITIGATORS, AND I TRY CASES
WITH ALL SORTS OF LITIGATORS,
BUT THE FACT IS, UNTIL YOU
LEARN THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO USE
THE APPELLATE COURTS, THAT YOU
HAVE GOT TO USE THE PROPER
MEASURES, AND AS LONG AS YOU
THINK YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THE
COURT TO, THE JUDGE TO TASK,
THEN IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IS A
PROBLEM.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING, YOUR HONOR, BUT WHAT I
MEANT WAS YOU DRAW, MY POSITION
HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO,, THAT IF A
PROBLEM PRESENTS ITSELF IN THE
CONTEXT OF REPRESENT AGO
DEFENDANT IN A JURY TRIAL, THAT
YOU SHOULD DRAW ISSUE WITH IT
AND NOT JUST DANCE AROUND IT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I GUESS WHAT
I AM NOW HEARING, I WANTED TO
KNOW IF YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD AN
ANGER PROBLEM, THAT THERE IS
THIS, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER
ANGER MANAGEMENT EVEN IS
COURSES OR COUNSELING, BUT WHAT
I AM HEARING YOU ARE SAYING IS,
NO, THIS WAS REALLY INTENTIONAL
BEHAVIOR, BECAUSE YOU FELT THAT
YOUR CLIENT WAS NOT GETTING A
FAIR SHAKE, AND YOU FELT YOU
NEEDED TO ACT THIS WAY,
IN ORDER TO GET YOUR CLIENT A
FAIR SHAKE, IS THAT WHAT I AM
HEARING?
WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT, IF THE
SITUATION AGAIN PRESENTS
ITSELF, YOU WOULD, AGAIN,
ENGAGE IN THIS TYPE OF
INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR.
JUDGE, I HOPE, I TRIED TO
LET YOU KNOW THAT SINCE THE
ENCOUNTER WITH JUDGE COLLINS, I
HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY SENSITIVE
TO HOW I REACT TO ANY
SITUATION, HOW I PRESERVE ERROR
IN THE RECORD.
THIS HAS BEEN A SERIOUS
SITUATION TO ME, NOT ONLY
BECAUSE I THINK I OVERSTEPPED
MY RIGHTFUL BOUNDS AS AN
ADVOCATE BUT BECAUSE IT
HAPPENED WITH JUDGE COLLINS.
THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT
MAN TO BE PRESENTED WITH MY
BEHAVIOR AT THAT TIME.
HE NEVER HURT ME.
HE NEVER WAS DISRESPECTFUL TO
ME.
OR ANY CLIENT OF MINE.
EVER.
I NEVER HEARD HIM SAY A BAD
WORD ABOUT MYSELF OR ANYONE
ELSE.
SINCE THEN, I HAVE BEEN, I
REALIZED THAT MY REACTION TO
WHAT OTHER JUDGES MAY HAVE
SAID, SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPUGNED
IMPLIEDLY, AT LEAST, JUDGE
COLLINS'S INTEGRITY AS A JUDGE.
THE MAN WAS TRYING TO DO THE
RIGHT THING.
I WAS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT
THING.
I SAW HIM PRESENTING AN ANIMUS
TOWARD ME THAT I LEARNED
THEREAFTER, EMANATED FROM SOME
OTHER JUDGES HAD SAID SOME
NEGATIVE THINGS ABOUT ME, WHICH
JUDGES I THOUGHT I KNEW, AND I
HAD GO TO THE JQC ON ONE OF
THOSE JUDGES THAT I THOUGHT HAD
PRECIPITATED THIS PRESENTATION
BY JUDGE COLLINS.
JUSTICE: WHAT SEEMS TO BE
MISSING HERE, I THINK, WHAT THE
COURT IS SEARCHING FOR --
YES, SIR.
JUSTICE: -- IS FOR YOU TO STATE
QUITE SINCERELY AND
PASSIONATELY, THAT I HAVE
RECOGNIZED THAT THIS WAS
GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE, WHAT I
DID, IN ALL THREE OF THE
INSTANCES THAT I HAVE BEEN
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS.
AND THAT I CAN ASSURE THIS
COURT THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT IT
WAS INAPPROPRIATE, AND THAT I
AM COMMITTED THAT THIS WILL
NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, WHATEVER
TREATMENT OR WHATEVER IT TAKES
ON MY PART.
IS THAT FAIR, OR IS THAT --
JUDGE, I STIPULATED TO THE
FIRST TWO INSTANCES WITH JUDGE
SPECKLER AND JUDGE HOLMES, AND
I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH
JUDGE HOLMES THEREAFTER.
MATTER OF FACT, JUDGE HOLMES AND I GET
ALONG FINE.
I AM VERY SINCERE NOT TO GET
INTO THIS ENDEAVOUR AGAIN.
I WILL BUILD A RECORD BUT WITH
THE UTMOST PRESENTATION OF
RESPECT, TO
OPPOSING COUNSEL AND TO JUDGES
AS WELL.
JUSTICE: DO YOU AGREE THAT
THIS WAS INAPPROPRIATE IN A
COURT OF LAW?
TO PRESENT MYSELF TO A
JUDGE, YES, I DO.
I FEEL DEFICIENT ABOUT IT AND I
HAVE ENDEAVORED TO RECTIFY
THAT.
JUSTICE: MR. MORGAN, WHAT
COULD WE DO THAT WOULD HELP YOU
UNDERSTAND THAT YOU USE THE
WORD "TAKE TO TASK" BUT IN
FULLY REPRESENTING A CRIMINAL
DEFENDANT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE
TO DO THIS.
JUDGE, I AM SO EMBARRASSED.
I AM STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU
HERE NOW AND HAVING YOU ALL SAY
THESE THINGS ABOUT ME, BECAUSE
THE LAST THING I WANT IS TO BE
DISRESPECTED BY A MEMBER OF MY
PROFESSION.
I VALUE THIS PROFESSION
GREATLY.
I VALUE THE DEFENSE BAR
IN CRIMINAL CASES.
I DON'T DO CIVIL.
VERY AVIDLY, AND TO ME TO BE
PUT IN THIS KIND OF A SITUATION
DEMEANS MYSELF IN MY OWN MIND,
AND I DON'T WANT THAT, EITHER,
AND YOU HAVE DONE ENOUGH.
IF YOU WANT TO DO MORE.
JUSTICE: I DON'T THINK THERE
IS MORE TO YOU.
IT IS MORE TO HELP.
THAT IS REALLY WHAT THIS IS
ABOUT, ISN'T IT?
YES, SIR.
JUSTICE: THIS WHOLE PROCESS
IS NOT JUST TO PUNISH SOMEONE.
IT IS TO HELP YOU BE A BETTER
LAWYER, IT SEEMS TO ME, AND HOW
CAN WE DO THAT?
I HAVE BEEN DOING IT MYSELF,
JUDGE, EVER SINCE THE ENCOUNTER
WITH JUDGE COLLINS.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR ONE
JUDGE ON THIS PLANET THAT IS
GOING TO SAY I WAS ANYTHING BUT
RESPECTFUL TO THEM.
IN FACT JUDGE GREEN WHOM I WENT
TO THE JQC ON ONCE BEFORE AND I
DID THAT TO PROTECT THE ASPURGENCE THAT MY CLIENT WAS
GOING TO PRESENT.
I INTERCEPTED IT FROM MY CLIENT AND
WROTE IT OUT IN MORE GERMANE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
EVEN WORKING WITH JUDGE GREEN,
HE AND I GET ALONG AND I HAVE
APOLOGIZED TO HIM, AND I KNOW
YOU ALL DON'T WANT TO GO
OUTSIDE THE RECORD, BUT I HAVE
TAKEN STEPS SUCH AS THAT TO
REMEDY ANY KIND OF RIFT OR ILL
PER ACCEPTS THAT IS JUDGES V I
HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH JUDGE
SPECKLER.
I HAVE SHOOK HANDS WITH HIM AND
SPOKEN TO HIM, AND I HAVEN'T
SAID ANYTHING ELSE TO JUDGE
SPECKLER.
BUT JUDGE GREEN, I APOLOGIZED
TO HIM IN A SIDE BAR WITH HIM,
AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, HE FELT I
WAS SINCERE.
AT LEAST I
WAS SINCERE.
CHIEF JUSTICE: I THINK IT
WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE COURT TO
HEAR FROM YOU.
WE WILL TAKE THIS
CASE UNDER ADVISEMENT, AND MR.
HADDAD, THANK YOU FOR COMING
HERE TO REPRESENT YOUR CLIENT.
THE COURT WILL BE IN RECESS
UNTIL NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW
MORNING.
MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE.