Vol. 29, No. 1 #2 (February 2006). EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

• Author: By Mary B. Guthrie

Wyoming Bar Journal

2006.

Vol. 29, No. 1 #2 (February 2006).

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT

WYOMING LAWYERFebruary 2006/Vol. 29, No. 1EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORTBy Mary B. Guthrie

Periodically, Bar associations adopt initiatives to encourage civility in the legal profession. Lawyers are encouraged to treat other lawyers and their clients with respect. However, I have not read many expressions of concern about attorneys treating judges in a disrespectful manner. Maybe the possibility of being charged with contempt keeps otherwise impolite attorneys in line. However, this was not the case in Wyoming in 1884, when an attorney foolishly criticized the Territorial Supreme Court and was punished for his "scandalous, contemptuous and disgraceful statements." The case in point, In re Accusation against Brown, 3 Wyo. 121, 4 P. 1085 (1884), involved Melvin Brown, an attorney admitted to practice before the Territorial Supreme Court.(fn1) After Brown lost an appeal, he publicly criticized the justices, rather than suffering in private:

The accusation avers inter alia that the respondent, in the presence of divers witnesses, in the city of Cheyenne, in this territory, uttered of and concerning this court, and its decision of a certain cause, the following language: "It is a son of a bitch of a court, - one bribed and the other I don't know what." It is further alleged that said words were so spoken with intent to scandalize, traduce and bring into contempt and disgrace the court.

Brown admitted criticizing the Court, but he tried to take out some of the sting of his comments by claiming that he had uttered the phrase "son of a gun" rather than "son of a bitch." While the Court was not swayed by his efforts to minimize his verbal conduct, the judges were especially bothered by the bribery accusation:

By his words spoken publicly, the respondent, with vile epithets, charged the court with the commission of the highest crime which a court can possibly commit, and yet it is not claimed that there was even the slightest ground for that charge.

It appears that Melvin (the Miscreant) Brown could have redeemed himself with the Court if he had merely apologized for his intemperate language, instead of suggesting that his comments were just offensive:

The plain duty of respondent was then to right the wrong as far as possible, and when confronted...