Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Lawyer Disbarred for Switching Vote as a Juror Solely in Order To Return To His
Busy Law Practice:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_03_08-2009_03_14.shtml#1236811645
The case is [1]In re Fahy (Cal. Bar Ct.); here's an excerpt from an
affidavit signed by the lawyer to support a motion for a new trial:
I was convinced from the outset [of the medical malpractice trial]
that [the defendant] had violated the standard of care in his care
and treatment of the [p]laintiff.... During the trial that was
supposed to last only 2-3 weeks, I maintained a busy law practice.
As the trial continued into its 4th week, problems at work
continued to mount as most of the day was devoted to my being a
juror. Deliberations were a nightmare.... It was becoming very
apparent that even if the other jurors were to vote in favor of the
[p]laintiff on the issue of liability, that lengthy discussion
would take place on other issues ...
As a result, I advised my fellow jurors that I would change my vote
if Judge Ballati failed to declare a mistrial after he was advised
that the jury was deadlocked because there was no way I could
afford to spend another week away from the office ...
When I arrived on Monday, I changed my vote to favor [the
defendant] even though he was liable for what happened to the
[p]laintiff. I changed my vote so that the deliberations would
finally come to an end and I could return to the office....
The court's legal conclusion:
[T]he harm to the parties and to the fair administration of justice
is clear and serious when respondent disregarded his duty to vote
as the facts and judge's instructions guided him, and instead voted
as the convenience of his law practice swayed. To be sure, jury
service for busy citizens of all occupations or with family
responsibilities can be difficult, even burdensome, at times. Yet
it is the accepted duty of citizens to serve, subject to the
statutory provision for excuse for undue hardship. Moreover, the
Judicial Council has recognized that jury service is an �important
civic responsibility,� requiring court and staff use of all
necessary and appropriate means to ensure that citizens fulfill
this duty. Surely, respondent, as a practicing attorney at the
time, was keenly aware of the role which an effective jury system
serves in the fair administration of justice.
Respondent's violation was not a technical one. As the Court of
Appeal and the State Bar Court hearing judge each found,
respondent's vote was decisive in breaking the jury's deadlock.
Patently, his change of vote to avoid continuing to serve as a
juror voided the verdict he rendered and required the parties,
their counsel and the courts to bear the additional costs, time and
burdens of appellate and further trial court proceedings.
Because of this misconduct, because of Fahy's apparently deceitful
responses to the court when questioned about this, and because of
Fahy's recent disciplinary record, and because of Fahy's lack of
acceptance of responsibility, he was disbarred. For more, see [2]this
S.F. Recorder article.
Of course, if Fahy had only remained quiet about his true motivation
(something he initially revealed to his fellow jurors during
deliberation) he would have gotten off scot-free (though that of
course does not excuse his behavior).
References
1. http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/disbar0310.pdf
2. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428952939
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
