A couple of weird stories from the legal world caught my eye this week. They are too good not to share.
The first item comes from Minnesota. A judge in Anoka County named John Peter Dehen retired from the bench on October 10, following an order from the Minnesota Supreme Court suspending him on several counts of misconduct. Among other things, Dehen held a hearing involving confidential juvenile matters from a moving vehicle while riding to a family member's swim meet. This novel attempt at work life balance did not sit well with the Supreme Court. Nor did Dehen's order to an administrator to give his court reporter a raise despite a clear conflict of interest.
But what makes this story truly bizarre is what Dehen did next. Having been stripped of his "Judge" title, Dehen applied to a court in Ramsey County to legally change his name from "John Peter Dehen" to "Judge John Peter Dehen." I am not making this up. Perhaps he wanted to salvage his stationary. But alas, Dehen's creativity did not impress Ramsey County Judge Leonardo Castro (whose birth name was "Fidel" – just kidding). Judge Castro noted in his order denying Dehen's request: "[t]o permit a former district court judge, who has been suspended for abusing his position of authority, to regain the title he was stripped of, would make the administration of justice a practical mockery," . . . The Applicant is not replacing his first name of John with Judge but is requesting that Judge be added before John so he can be addressed as 'Judge John Dehen,'" . . . . "By using the name 'Judge,' the Applicant would be holding himself out as a judge, a position he held for 15 years, but no longer holds."
This reminds me of the scene in "Anchorman," when Ron Burgandy's dog Baxter eats an entire wheel of cheese. Burgandy says, "I'm not mad, I'm actually kind of impressed." I mean, I give Dehen an A for effort. And I suppose I will scrap my plans to change my name to "His Majesty John C. Greiner."
The other item is a little closer to home. The Ohio Supreme Court decided on October 23 to impose an 18-month suspension on an Ohio lawyer who showed up at the Cincinnati office of Blake Maislin, and, adorned with markings on his face (which he called warpaint), proceeded to brandish a hatchet and a baseball bat, while making threatening comments to people assembled outside the building. Apparently, the lawyer, who used to work at the firm, had a beef with Maislin. The lawyer demanded that Maislin come outside and face him in a duel. Maislin, who apparently saw the play "Hamilton," wisely chose to stay in his office.
The lawyer's former assistant was able to calm him down, and he left before the police arrived. But the lawyer was still fired up, as he sent a text to the assistant, which stated: "I was praying Blake would come out. I was praying that he would choose the bat since he likes baseball, so I could execute my plan and take his scalp and drink his blood in front of you and while I raged like a deranged starving cornered vengeful beast that prayed [sic] on its predator. . . . There is another device called a Molotov cocktail that I think would be tremendously effective during a big mediation, bring some innocents into it, to exponentially heighten the mother f***ing horror."
The Supreme Court found that the lawyer violated two Rules of Professional Conduct: first, by "committing an illegal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty or trustworthiness" and second, by engaging in "conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law." Those charges seem mild given the circumstances. According to the Supreme Court, the only mitigating factor for the lawyer was the fact that he had a clean record up to the threatened murder.
The lawyer is lucky this took place in Ohio and not Kentucky. In the Bluegrass state, lawyers have to take an oath that includes this passage: "I do further solemnly swear that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within the State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, SO HELP ME GOD." I always thought that passage was wildly outdated, but perhaps not.
