Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Attorney Doe No. 792

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the First Amendment did not protect ex parte communications to a judge in which an attorney allegedly violated disciplinary rules by making false and unreasonable allegations of unethical conduct
• holding that the First Amendment did not protect ex parte communications to a judge in which an attorney allegedly violated disciplinary rules by making false and unreasonable allegations of unethical conduct
• explaining that to avoid constitutional concerns we adopted “an objective standard for assessing criticisms of judicial officers made by attorneys”
• stating in attorney disciplinary case we “analyze whether the statement is entitled to First Amendment protection”
• attorney who accused a judge over email of making a “pathetic ruling” as part of a “shameless cover up for [his] circle of buddies” received a private admonition
• discussing Kennedy, 837 N.W.2d at 663–64

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).