In re Oliver, 69 D 4.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 69 D 4.,69 D 4. |
| Citation | 308 F. Supp. 1183 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Frank W. OLIVER, Attorney. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Thomas A. Foran, U. S. Atty., D. Arthur Connelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., for the Government.
James M. Shellow, Milwaukee, Wis., Percy L. Julian, Jr., Madison, Wis., Robert Kasanof, New York City, for respondent.
Before CAMPBELL, Chief Judge, ROBSON, Acting Chief Judge, and PERRY and NAPOLI, District Judges, the Executive Committee.
MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND ORDER
On November 6, 1969 respondent Frank W. Oliver, a member of the bar of this court, on behalf of a number of other attorneys practicing in criminal cases, filed with this court a suit captioned Petition in Re: Trials of Pending Future Criminal Cases, No. 69 C 2339, 306 F.Supp. 333 and requested consideration and relief. Essentially the petition stated concern that criminal cases were likely to be affected by what the petitioners seemed to consider "extraordinary events" which they attributed to the trial of the case of United States of America v. David Dellinger et al No. 69 CR 180.
Immediately after filing said petition, and before the court could possibly give the petition any consideration whatsoever, respondent conducted a prearranged conference with the communications media, appeared on television and issued public statements all of which related to and commented upon the petition he had just filed with the court.
The petition filed by Mr. Oliver was in due course considered and determined by this Committee to be frivolous and impertinent and was ordered stricken. (Executive Committee Order, November 13, 1969). In that order we noted that respondent had issued statements to the press and other media in this district, on November 6, 1969, in violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics.
On November 14, 1969 this Committee issued a citation ordering respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplined for violation of the Canons of Professional Ethics and of this court's mandate to the bar promulgated as a Policy Statement on November 12, 1965 in response to a directive of the Judicial Conference of the United States through its Committee on Free Press—Fair Trial. That mandate reads as follows:
At the hearing held upon the Show Cause Order Mr. Oliver filed a written response in which he admitted that at the time of his cited misconduct "he knew of the provisions of the applicable rules" and that "prior to the filing of the petition, arrangements were made for his interview by the news media, all with his consent." He further unequivocally states, "That at the time of that interview he was aware that the conduct in which he was engaged was violative of the Policy Statement of this court dated November 12, 1965." Furthermore respondent boldly informed the court, "that he intends to continue to make such statements to the news media and other persons who will listen, as seemed to him to touch upon matters of public importance, whether or not they concern the judiciary or the administration of justice, with the single exception that as in the past he will make no statements that will tend to contaminate or improperly influence any trier of facts."
The only defense raised by respondent is a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Oliver
...Oliver and warned him that "any future misconduct similar to that here reprimanded shall subject him to disbarment." In re Oliver, 308 F.Supp. 1183, 1185 (N.D.Ill.1970). The district court found that Oliver, together with numerous other attorneys of its bar, had filed a petition which was t......
-
In re Oliver, 71-1519.
...rule . . . (5) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice." 5 This was a reference to In re Oliver, 308 F.Supp. 1183 (N.D.Ill.1970), wherein the Executive Committee reprimanded Oliver and warned him that future similar misconduct . . . "shall subject him to disba......