Thursday, October 31, 2013

Wow the lawyers involved are actually guilty of misconduct.
Brent uses Megan as an agent to go in and work with the judge
Megan Gaudette tried to block Anita Bracken so the social workers could isolate and exploit her disability

RULE 8.4: MISCONDUCT
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or
official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or
other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of
applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) harass a person on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national
origin, disability, sexual orientation, or marital status in connection with a lawyer’s
professional activities;
(h) commit a discriminatory act prohibited by federal, state, or local statute or
ordinance that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer. Whether a
discriminatory act reflects adversely on a lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer shall be
determined after consideration of all the circumstances, including:
(1) the seriousness of the act,
(2) whether the lawyer knew that the act was prohibited by statute or
ordinance,
(3) whether the act was part of a pattern of prohibited conduct, and
(4) whether the act was committed in connection with the lawyer’s
professional activities; or 114
(i) refuse to honor a final and binding fee arbitration award after agreeing to
arbitrate a fee dispute.
Comment
[1] Lawyers are subject to discipline when they violate or attempt to violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of another, as
when they request or instruct an agent to do so on the lawyer’s behalf. Paragraph (a), however, does not
prohibit a lawyer from advising a client concerning action the client is legally entitled to take.
[2] Many kinds of illegal conduct reflect adversely on fitness to practice law, such as offenses
involving fraud and the offense of willful failure to file an income tax return. Although a lawyer is
personally answerable to the entire criminal law, a lawyer should be professionally answerable only for
offenses that indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to the practice of law. Offenses involving
violence, dishonesty, or breach of trust, or serious interference with the administration of justice are in
that category. A pattern of repeated offenses, even ones of minor significance when considered
separately, can indicate indifference to legal obligation.
[3] Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other
citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of
attorney. The same is true of abuse of positions of private trust such as trustee, executor, administrator,
guardian, agent and officer, director or manager of a corporation or other organization.
[4] Paragraph (g) specifies a particularly egregious type of discriminatory act-harassment on the
basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or marital
status. What constitutes harassment in this context may be determined with reference to
antidiscrimination legislation and case law thereunder. This harassment ordinarily involves the active
burdening of another, rather than mere passive failure to act properly.
[5] Harassment on the basis of sex, race, age, creed, religion, color, national origin, disability,
sexual orientation, or marital status may violate either paragraph (g) or paragraph (h). The harassment
violates paragraph (g) if the lawyer committed it in connection with the lawyer’s professional activities.
Harassment, even if not committed in connection with the lawyer’s professional activities, violates
paragraph (h) if the harassment (1) is prohibited by antidiscrimination legislation and (2) reflects
adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer, determined as specified in paragraph (h).
[6] Paragraph (h) reflects the premise that the concept of human equality lies at the very heart of
our legal system. A lawyer whose behavior demonstrates hostility toward or indifference to the policy of
equal justice under the law may thereby manifest a lack of character required of members of the legal
profession. Therefore, a lawyer’s discriminatory act prohibited by statute or ordinance may reflect
adversely on his or her fitness as a lawyer even if the unlawful discriminatory act was not committed in
connection with the lawyer’s professional activities.
[7] Whether an unlawful discriminatory act reflects adversely on fitness as a lawyer is
determined after consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the four factors listed in
paragraph (h). It is not required that the listed factors be considered equally, nor is the list intended to be
exclusive. For example, it would also be relevant that the lawyer reasonably believed that his or her
conduct was protected under the state or federal constitution or that the lawyer was acting in a capacity
for which the law provides an exemption from civil liability. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. Section 317A.257
(unpaid director or officer of nonprofit organization acting in good faith and not willfully or recklessly). 115
[8] A lawyer may refuse to comply with