Attorney's free speech went too far, N.D. high court holds

By The Associated Press

11.19.02

Printer-friendly page

BISMARCK, N.D. — North Dakota's Supreme Court reprimanded an attorney who said one of the high court's rulings was dishonest, called another lawyer a liar and said a district judge put himself "at risk" with his decisions.

The attorney, Jonathan Garaas of Fargo, also must pay $7,312 to defray the cost of the disciplinary case against him, the state Supreme Court said on Nov. 15.

Garaas made the statements during three court proceedings, from November 2000 to January 2001, records say. He was objecting to a Supreme Court ruling on a property dispute, and to East Central District Judge Frank Racek's moves to implement the decision.

When Racek asked Garaas if he would sign deeds to transfer the property, the attorney responded by saying Racek was placing himself "at risk." Racek later said he interpreted Garaas' statement "as a threat to sue me personally" and as an attempt to delay the transfer, which affected 114 acres in southwestern Fargo.

At other hearings, Garaas said the Supreme Court had "made a false representation" of a legal issue that had been appealed in his case, and claimed an opposing attorney, Sid Spaeth of Fargo, had lied about factual matters in the property dispute.

Garaas said he was representing the interests of his client, TAG Investments, in making the statements. The U.S. Constitution's free-speech guarantees also should shield him from any discipline for the remarks, he argued.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that Garaas deserved a public reprimand.

"A lawyer's right to free speech does not permit a lawyer appearing in a judicial proceeding, in open court, to call opposing counsel a liar, to threaten a judge with personal liability if he rules a certain way, to accuse an appellate court of false misrepresentation, or to engage in a lengthy, disruptive, belligerent, and disrespectful exchange with the court," the North Dakota Supreme Court's ruling concluded.

TAG Investments had granted another company, Matrix Properties Corp., the option of buying the 114 acres of land. The legal battle was about whether Matrix had complied with the agreement's terms. The Supreme Court ruled it had, and that TAG Investments was obliged to sell the property.

Related

Lawyer's criticism of judge is protected speech, Colorado high court rules
State attorney grievance committee had suspended lawyer for 60 days for accusing judge of being racist, charging excessive fees.  09.14.00

Attorney laments high court's refusal to hear his free-speech case
Justices refuse to review Texas Supreme Court's decision that lawyer could be punished for sending letter to jurors criticizing their verdict.  06.11.99