Judicial Criticism Will Lead to Bar Discipline Absent ‘Objectively Reasonable’ Factual Basis

A lawyer may be disciplined for remarks impugning an administrative agency judge unless the challenged statements were “supported by an objectively reasonable factual basis,” the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held Oct. 23 (Lawyer Disciplinary Bd. v. Hall, 2014 BL 299061, W. Va., No. 13-0180).

Addressing the issue for the first time, the court rejected the minority view that the subjective “actual malice” standard applied in defamation cases should be used to assess violations of the ethics rule that prohibits disparaging statements about judges and public legal officers.

Justice Margaret L. Workman said “the interests sought to ...