In what some consider to be a Stalinistic show trial, on February 29^th 2024, a Judge acting as referee, sentenced Christopher Crowley, Esq. to a 60 day suspension of his law license, for engaging in ‘controversial’ political speech during a Republican Primary campaign in Florida’s 20^th district for State Attorney. The Florida Bar was actually seeking a harsher penalty for Mr. Crowley’s ‘incorrect’ political speech. Mr. Crowley is appealing the decision, and it will likely go before the Supreme Court of Florida this fall.

This case may have important ramifications for attorneys throughout the state of Florida. While nonpartisan judicial races have strict rules for attorneys campaigning for those offices, these rules have not been construed to apply to all political races. There currently is nothing in Florida Bar rules about restrictions on running for partisan political office. This judge’s creative application of judicial rules to non-judicial races disregards the First Amendment in an area that is considered the most sacred form of speech, political speech. Empire of Lies Craig Roberts, Paul Best Price: $11.77 Buy New $18.86 (as of 12:57 UTC - Details)

A retired army colonel, Mr. Crowley is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, and a former prosecutor and defense attorney. Crowley has had no complaints or ethical issues regarding his law license prior to his campaign, and absolutely none involving the practice of law.

Mr. Crowley lost in a combative political campaign, against Amira Fox for State Attorney. After the campaign, Crowley was targeted with frivolous Bar complaints by political opponents. Instead of dismissing the complaints, the Florida Bar went on a witch hunt of sorts.

In November, the Rutherford Institute came to the defense of Mr. Crowley.  John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People, stated:

No matter what their political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to criticize government programs or policies with which they might disagree,” ……..“Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense or hurting someone’s feelings, protect government officials from criticism, penalize hateful ideas, combat prejudice and intolerance, and the like.

Mr. Whitehead hits it on the nail. In this case we are not speaking about abstract extensions of First Amendment protections. This is about free speech in a political campaign. Crowley attacked his opponent’s conviction rates and questioned his opponent’s character. He also accused her of having him arrested. It was his inherent right to do so.

Rutherford previously argued:

the previous judge’s analysis violated First Amendment protections of free speech—which are heightened in an election context—by applying an unconstitutional standard which would enable claims through the State Bar to be weaponized to chill speech critical of public officials. In Counterman, the U.S. Supreme Court reined in the government’s power to punish speech it deems distasteful or annoying.  

A defamation case against Mr. Crowley would arguably be thrown out immediately; the Florida Bar appears to be weaponized to target Mr. Crowley. The Florida Bar is apparently acting under the color of law on behalf of the State of Florida to silence political free speech. The Supreme Court of Florida will hopefully reject this authoritarian stance that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution and the Florida Constitution.

In discounting this, the Florida Bar had previously argued:

The U.S. District Court of Appeals in the 9th Circuit stated, “…once a lawyer is admitted to the bar, although he does not surrender his freedom of expression, he must temper his criticisms in accordance with professional standards of conduct.” U.S. Dist. Ct. for E. Dist. of Washington v. Sandlin, 12 F.3d 861, 866 (9th Cir. 1993).

In the recent hearing this past February the Florida Bar in Maoist fashion appeared to want to force Mr. Crowley to put on a dunce hat and acknowledge his error. Ms. Guinand the Florida Bar’s Counsel stated:

Mr. Crowley is aware, there was a trial, there was a finding of guilt, and there is a report from a Judge saying that this is what has been determined. And to date, Mr. Crowley has not acknowledged any of it. In the hearing yesterday, and given the opportunity, did not acknowledge any of it….he refused to acknowledge it

Crowley’s attorney Mr. Tozian argued:

This is the first case anywhere, I would submit to you, since the Bar not only failed to bring you a Florida Bar case talking about partisan political speech, but for many of the other 49 jurisdictions in the United States. And I think that goes to the First Amendment privilege that I’m going to talk about later. It goes with partisan political speech.

The Judge/Referee’s response was to invent a new rule for Attorneys campaigning for office: Breaking Away: The Cas... McMaken, Ryan Best Price: $8.00 Buy New $12.00 (as of 08:06 UTC - Details)

running for office as a lawyer for a position that’s a legal position is a lot different than, you know, someone that’s not an attorney running for an office, an elected office. · It’s just different, and that’s what you agree to when you become a member of the Bar. It’s just, you know, plain and simple; you know, you’re a member of the Bar and these are the rules and we all follow them, we hope to follow them in how we conduct ourselves

It is unclear if this new rule the judge created would apply to attorneys running against non-attorneys or just attorneys running against other attorneys. Do attorneys now have to play nice in all political campaigns or just campaigns against other attorneys?

Rather than attacking the first amendment rights of attorneys the Florida Bar and the referee should consider creating a rule of transparency in legal billing so that attorneys can’t pad their hours and bill clients for their legal research….I know, but I couldn’t resist…

Read the Whole Article