Jack Thompson disbarred
Posted by Dan on September 28, 2008Sorry that we’re a little late covering it, but I’ve been too busy celebrating to significantly cover it. The Florida Supreme Court has affirmed a judicial referee’s decision to disbar Jack Thompson, the anti-video game violence crusader, permanently, with no reinstatement, and ordered him to pay more than $40,000 in fines.
The news was so big that GamePolitics, a favorite target of Thompson actually went down over the past several days.
For those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Thompson’s past, these were the charges laid against him by the Florida Bar:
- Respondent made false statements of material fact to courts and repeatedly violated a court order
- Respondent publicized and sent hundreds of pages of vitriolic and disparaging missives, letters, faxes, and press releases, to the affected individuals
- Respondent falsely, recklessly, and publicly accused a judge as being amenable to the “fixing” of cases
- Respondent sent courts inappropriate and offensive sexual materials;
- Respondent falsely and publicly accused various attorneys and their clients of engaging in a conspiracy/enterprise involving “the criminal distribution of sexual materials to minors” and attempted to get prosecuting authorities to charge these attorneys and their clients for racketeering and extortion
- Respondent harassed the former client of an attorney in an effort to get the client to use its influence to persuade the attorney to withdraw a defamation suit filed by the attorney against respondent.
While it’s never a good thing that an attorney be disbarred, Gameslaw does support the decision. Thompson’s actions hurt not just his victims, but all attornies in the games industry, and all consumers under the protections of the First Amendment. It’s sad that it came to this, but substantive justice was done.
Popularity: 9% [?]
I beg to differ. In this case it is a very good thing that an attorney was disbarred. No one is entitled to a law license, especially not someone so profoundly incompetent. A license to practice law is a privilege, not a right.
I hear he’s pursuing a second career as a weatherman. At least then he can still have something to blame for the world’s ills.
It’s a very good thing that “this” attorney was disbarred, however it’s not a good thing in general that any attorney is disbarred. We’d have been a lot better off had Thompson’s behavior never been so outrageous as to come to this. Nobody is disputing that there is no right to a law license; however I’m saying that it’s never a good thing when someone’s actions get to the point that they need to even face the inquiry.
My “right to practice law” comment was directed more in response to Thompson’s responses to the disbarment. His comments tend to suggest that he believes some great personal right is denied to him by the disbarment. “This is when it gets fun…” I mean come ON.
Yeah but you gotta keep in mind, that’s how Jack works. He’s not in it for law. He’s not in it to zealously represent his clients. He’s in it for the lulz. For the drama. He already feels that the legal community is against him so what’s the big deal for him to lose his license? He now gets to make an even bigger stink about it, quite literally “making a federal case” out of it. That’s what he really wants.
It’s not, and never was, about his right to practice law. Only about his desire to be heard. And just like any petulant child who doesn’t get to be heard, now he’s having a tantrum.
Thompson has no procedural due process claim here. The right to a law license is not fundamental, and this disbarment is more than rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in stopping those who abuse our legal profession for personal gain and petty vendettas.
Add A Comment