{"id":7698,"date":"2007-06-01T16:15:40","date_gmt":"2007-06-01T21:15:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/06\/01\/should-they-disbar-tuberculesq\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:47","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:47","slug":"should-they-disbar-tuberculesq","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/06\/01\/should-they-disbar-tuberculesq\/","title":{"rendered":"should they disbar TuberculEsq?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\"noyabutsNS\"\u00a0\u00a0 The instantly infamous Atlanta personal injury lawyer Andrew H. Speaker has caused a lot of well-warranted tongue-clucking across the nation and within the legal profession over the past\u00a0couple of days.\u00a0\u00a0See: “Tuberculosis Patient an Atlanta Lawyer<\/a>,” 11Alive\/AP<\/em> (May 31, 2007); find extensive coverage and links at the\u00a0Above The Law<\/em><\/a> weblog.\u00a0\u00a0 After being told that he has the worst form of tuberculosis (called “extensively drug-resistant” or XDR-TB), Speaker\u00a0slipped out of his hotel, took a transoceanic commercial\u00a0flight from Italy, and\u00a0then snuck\u00a0across the Canadian border by car back into the United States.\u00a0“Border Agent Allowed TB Patient in U.S.<\/a>,” AP\/MyWay<\/em> (May 31, 2007).\u00a0 According to the Seattle Times<\/a><\/em>, Speaker\u00a0“thought he was stuck in Italy” and decided to sneak home because he feared he would die without treatment in the United States. “I thought to myself: ‘You’re nuts.’ I wasn’t going to do that’.”\u00a0\u00a0 He reportedly told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution<\/em> on Tuesday that he thought the security was excessive.<\/p>\n

“I’m a very well-educated, successful, intelligent person,” he told the paper. “This is insane to me that I have an armed guard outside my door when I’ve cooperated with everything other than the whole solitary-confinement-in-Italy thing.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Lawyer-Patient Speaker told Diane Sawyer this morning he never thought others were at risk for catching his deadly disease.\u00a0 In the ABCNews interview, “Exclusive: TB Patient Asks Forgiveness but Defends Travel<\/a>” (June 1, 2007) Speaker told Sawyer:<\/p>\n

“I’m very sorry for any grief or pain that I have caused anyone . . .\u00a0 I think if people look at my life, that’s not & not how I live my life.”\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Officials from CDC disagree with his factual assertions, but\u00a0have said that Speaker has not broken any criminal laws. (We might need to know more facts relevant to his border crossings to know for sure).\u00a0 According to an Associated Press story<\/a> on May 31, 2007, “Health law experts said Speaker could be sued if others contract TB.”\u00a0 The article continues:<\/p>\n

“There are a number of cases that say a person who negligently transmits an infectious disease could be held liable,” said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law expert at Georgetown University. “So long as he knew it was infectious, and knew about the appropriate behavior but failed to comply, he could be held liable.”\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I’ll let others analyze the national security issues raised by this affair and discuss how to finally update our nation’s ability to deal with infectious diseases in an era when international travel is commonplace.\u00a0 I’m wondering what the Bar should do<\/em> about Lawyer Andrew Speaker,\u00a0if it becomes clear that he was indeed told by the CDC not to travel by commercial airlines or mingle with other people, when they contacted him in Italy, due to a risk of spreading his XDR-TB, but he nevertheless chose to jeopardize the safety of others by flying to Canada and driving into the United States.<\/p>\n

\u00a0\"SpeakerAndrew\"\u00a0\u00a0 Andrew H. Speaker is 31-years and graduated from the University of Georgia\u00a0Law School.\u00a0He practices law in Atlanta, Georgia, with his father in a firm that focuses on family\/divorce law and personal injury matters, and bills himself as a personal injury lawyer.\u00a0\u00a0The Speaker Law Firm<\/a>‘s “poweradvocates<\/em>” website has been swamped and inaccessible the past couple of days, but (as of Friday afternoon) you\u00a0can still\u00a0view its homepage\u00a0via this google cache<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In order to be admitted to the bar, a lawyer must\u00a0pass\u00a0a Good Character and Fitness Review by an officially\u00a0designated\u00a0board or committee.\u00a0 We’ve\u00a0discussed types of conduct that should be considered in determining an applicant’s “fitness” several times at this weblog\u00a0(for example here<\/a>\u00a0and there<\/a> on bankruptcy, and here<\/a> on substance abuse).\u00a0\u00a0Some people — especially younger members of the bar, it seems<\/a>\u00a0— seem to believe\u00a0that the scope of conduct deemed relevant should be rather small.\u00a0 Here is how an FAQ<\/a> posted by the Georgia Office of Bar Admission\u00a0explains\u00a0the good character\u00a0requirement:\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

4. WHAT DO THE GOOD CHARACTER AND FITNESS STANDARDS REQUIRE?\u00a0 The good character and fitness standards require that an applicant to the bar be one whose record of conduct justifies the trust of clients, adversaries, courts and others. The hallmark of such a person is honesty, especially in connection with the application for admission to the bar. Persons with a record showing a deficiency in honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability might not be recommended for admission.<\/p>\n

5. WHAT KINDS OF CONDUCT MIGHT SHOW A DEFICIENCY IN THE NECESSARY QUALITIES OF HONESTY, TRUST-WORTHINESS, DILIGENCE, OR RELIABILITY? Any of the following will be considered by the Fitness Board to be a basis for further inquiry before recommending admission:<\/p>\n

– unlawful conduct
\n– academic misconduct
\n– making of false statement, including omission of relevant facts
\n– misconduct in employment
\n– acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation
\n– abuse of legal process
\n– neglect of financial responsibilities, especially failure to repay student loans
\n– neglect of professional obligations
\n– violation of an order of a court, especially failure to pay child support
\n– evidence of mental or emotional instability
\n– evidence of drug or alcohol dependency
\n– denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds
\n– disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary agency or other professional disciplinary agency of any jurisdiction<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Regardless of any criminally or civilly liability under the law, I would hope that Speaker’s reckless, clandestine actions would\u00a0have barred him from membership in the Georgia bar, had they occurred prior to his admission.\u00a0 As alleged, they surely show a great deficit in the area of trustworthiness and reliability.\u00a0 Of course, Andrew is already a member of the bar.\u00a0 Therefore, if he is to be disciplined for his conduct the past couple of weeks, it must be scrutinized under the Georgia Code of Professional Conduct<\/a>.\u00a0 The relevant\u00a0section is\u00a0Rule 8.4<\/a>, which states:<\/p>\n

RULE 8.4 MISCONDUCT<\/p>\n

(a) It shall be a violation of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct for a lawyer to:<\/p>\n

(1) violate or attempt to violate the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;<\/p>\n

(2) be convicted of a felony;<\/p>\n

(3) be convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude where the underlying conduct relates to the lawyer’s fitness to practice law;<\/p>\n

(4) engage in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As you can see, the Rule is written to cover conduct that results in a felony conviction, or in a misdemeanor violation that both involves moral turpitude and<\/em> “relates to the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.”\u00a0\u00a0 As\u00a0a Comment to\u00a0Rule 8.4 states, not just any kind of criminal conduct comes within the rule.\u00a0 To be “professionally answerable,” a\u00a0lawyer’s conduct must “indicate lack of those characteristics relevant to law practice.”\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Otherwise, “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation”\u00a0must be “professional conduct” to be covered by the Rules.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"checkedBoxS\"\u00a0Thus, using its self-regulatory status, the legal profession protects its members from discipline for non-criminal and “non-professional” conduct, no matter how notorious and outrageously untrustworthy it might be. While\u00a0our image-conscious\u00a0elders and watchdogs\u00a0fret over which animals and\u00a0slogans are sufficiently dignified for lawyers to utilize in their marketing, they have decided that all sorts of\u00a0despicable conduct —\u00a0no matter how public or embarrassing to the profession\u00a0—\u00a0can be committed with\u00a0impugnity,\u00a0after <\/em>admission to the bar, so long as criminal laws are not broken.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Would you like Andrew Speaker to face bar\u00a0disciplinary action for his behavior this week?\u00a0 If his conduct is as alleged above, I wish he would be disciplined (perhaps even disbarred).\u00a0 However, we’re going to have to\u00a0wait to see whether any laws were broken — perhaps some form of interference with the administration of justice when dealing with the immigration authorities, or the flaunting of a foreign law — before\u00a0we can\u00a0hope\u00a0for action by the Georgia Bar’s Disciplinary Board.\u00a0 Failing that, e-shaming<\/a> and the general media spotlight has certainly harmed his reputation and will very likely make Mr. Speaker a far less attractive choice for one’s personal injury or divorce lawyers.\u00a0 But, I believe the leaders of Georgia Bar should speak out on this situation and that practicing attorneys should remember the XDR-TB Incident before referring any business to the Speaker Law Firm.<\/p>\n

\"pointerDudeNeg\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Prof. Steve Bainbridge<\/a>\u00a0analyzed\u00a0Andy Speaker’s potential for civil liability for FWI (flying while infected), in a posting entitled “Flying TB Infected Lawyer’s Liabilities<\/a>” (May 31, 2007; via Elefant at\u00a0LegalBlogWatch<\/em><\/a>). Steve noted that, without a convictin,\u00a0“Georgia doesn’t appear to have a legal ethics [rule] under which Speaker could get in trouble.” [update: see “The Legal Questions Behind the TB Case<\/a>: Incident highlights evolving government powers to prevent epidemics,” Fulton County<\/em> [GA] Daily Report\/Law.com<\/em>, June 8, 2007]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

spring morning \u2014\u00a0
\nthe hand of a student who
\nmay know the answer<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

the rooster\u2019s
\nfirst five syllables . . .
\nall he\u2019s got\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0………………………… by John Stevenson – The Heron’s Nest<\/em>, Vol. IX:2, June 2007<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"THNLogoG\"\u00a0Haiku<\/em>mania can be contagious, but it’s never dangerous to be exposed to The Heron’s Nest<\/a><\/em>‘s fine compilations of poetry.\u00a0 The newest edition of THN<\/em> was posted online today.\u00a0 As usual, f\/k\/a’s Honored Guests were well-represented.\u00a0 Here are a few of their haiku from The Heron’s Nest<\/em>, Vol. IX:2, June 2007<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

deep autumn
\nthe gleam of his wedding band
\nas he tends the fire<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

a squirrel\u2019s leap
\nfrom fence to tree \u2014
\nthe certainty of her love<\/p>\n

\u00a0(in mem. Kay Anderson)<\/p>\n

…………… by Carolyn Hall<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

childless . . .
\nI stand with the others
\nby the river<\/p>\n

………………………… by paul m<\/p>\n

more gray in my hair \u2014\u00a0
\na faint scent of mimosa
\nsweetens the breeze
\n\u00a0
\n……………………………… by Billie Wilson<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

lucky bamboo
\na single leaf
\ntipped with sun<\/p>\n

longer days\u00a0 \"spotlightS\"\u00a0
\na nameless bug
\non my bicycle<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0………………. by Yu Chang<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The instantly infamous Atlanta personal injury lawyer Andrew H. Speaker has caused a lot of well-warranted tongue-clucking across the nation and within the legal profession over the past\u00a0couple of days.\u00a0\u00a0See: “Tuberculosis Patient an Atlanta Lawyer,” 11Alive\/AP (May 31, 2007); find extensive coverage and links at the\u00a0Above The Law weblog.\u00a0\u00a0 After being told that he […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[555,900],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7698","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-haiku-or-senryu","category-viewpoint"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-20a","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7698","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7698"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7698\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12532,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7698\/revisions\/12532"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}