Political Speech Is Protected... Unless It's Aimed At The Judiciary

Lawyer's Insults of Judges Escalate Into Speech Case

It would appear that free speech is protected unless it is directed toward the judiciary. We can understand a court order not to discuss an ongoing case, but certainly a lawyer... a legal expert... has the right to comment on how the court has done its job. Wouldn't it be the job of the "marketplace of ideas" and the "court of public opinion" to determine the validity of his views? Certainly, if a judge is elected to the bench, as is the case for many state courts, there is a political component to crtiquing cases heard by the judge in question... right?

A constitutional battle involving a lawyer's right to insult a judge has been joined at the Michigan Supreme Court, which could set new limits on what lawyers say and do outside the courtroom.

And at the center of it all is Geoffrey Fieger, the outspoken former attorney for assisted-suicide doctor Jack Kevorkian.

Fieger faces a reprimand from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission for insulting three state appellate judges on a radio talk show in 1999 after the judges overturned a $15 million verdict he won in a medical malpractice case.

According to the grievance commission, Fieger used numerous obscenities, called the justices "three jackass court of appeals judges," declared war on them and referred to them as "Nazis."

Big deal, argued Fieger's lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, maintaining that Fieger's comments outside the courtroom are protected by the First Amendment.