VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Stalk the EEBA
Subscribe Via Email
AffectingChildren AlcoholicESQs ATL Baffling barBUFFOONERY Bong ChildPorn Court Decision crowdFavorites Gonzo HellerEhrman IdentityThieves JUDGES LawyerLaws LawyersOath licensedCriminals MarciaHatch MikeBock MilesEhrlich ModFraud MoralTurpitude Nuts Onion pedophileEsqs Politicians Ponzi Possession PREDATORS PublicSex Rookies SleezeBalls theRitz USAtty wallCertificate WatchList XXXsquirettes
AidingAbetting AlteringEvidence ArmsDealing Arson Assault Bribery Burglary ChildEndangerment Conspiracy Contempt Conviction DelinquencyMinor DisorderlyConduct DUI Embezzlement Extortion ExtraordinaryCollectionMeans Fabricating Documents False Statements to Government Forgery Fraud Fraud on the Court Harassment Homicide Illegal Political Donations JusticeEvasion Kidnapping MailTheft Manufacturing Documents Misprision MoneyLaundering NarcoticsTrafficking Obstruction Perjury Possession RacketeeringRICO SexCrime Sexual Abuse SexWithMinor Sodomy TaxCrimes Theft
Cocaine Ecstasy Fioricet Hashish Heroin Marijuana Methamphetamine Oxycontin Paraphernalia Percocet Valium
AdamsKessler BakerMcKenzie BlumCollins BruggemanLaw CooleyGodward Gunderson HellerEhrman HollandKnight KirklandEllis MayerBrown NixonPeabody RamseyEhrlich Tomar VLG WeilGotshal
Antitrust Bankruptcy Business Civil Rights Collections Consumer Litigation corporate securities Criminal Divorce Elder Law Employment environmental litigation Estate Law Hospitality Immigration Law Information Technology Insurance Recovery International Law IP Litigation Litigation Personal Injury Product Liability Prosecutor Real Estate Securities Litigation Sports Agent Tax Law Trademarks Trade Regulation Trust Law White Collar Crime Workers Compensation
- EEBA Poll | Should Attorneys be Drug Tested?
- Harold Ross, Esquire | ADMITTED
- Rudy David Guzzetta, Esquire | ADMITTED
- Jerry Solomon Berger, Esquire | ADMITTED
- Renay Rodriguez, CA Lawyer ** COMMENT THREAD **
- Henry Walsh, Jr., Esquire | REPRIMANDED
- Joseph Marin, Esquire | REPRIMANDED
- Bernard McBride, Jr., Esquire | REPRIMANDED
- Jonathan Tyrell, Xsquire | NOMINATED
- Hoa Truong, Esquirette | ADMITTED
- Raymond Nicklaus Szu, Esquire | ADDED TO EEBA WATCHLIST
- Adrian Adams, Esquire | ADDED TO EEBA WATCHLIST
- Karen Nagad, Esquirette | ADDED TO EEBA WATCH LIST
- Matthew Gardner, Esquire | ADDED TO EEBA WATCH LIST
- EEBA Poll | Should Attorneys be Drug Tested?
- EEBA Endorses Jon Hopkins, Esquire for Lake County DA
- Elise Mitchell, Esquirette | ADDED TO EEBA WATCH LIST
- Zachary Ian Gonzalez, Esquire | ADDED TO EEBA WATCH LIST
- Is the Govenator Angling to Eviscerate the State Bar of California?
- James Parsa | ADDED TO EEBA WATCH LIST
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Evil Esq Bar Assoc, Evil Esq Bar Assoc. Evil Esq Bar Assoc said: @BobBlahBlawg Be sure to register your vote: http://bit.ly/hlWq3 […]
Because attorneys do not challenge the unConstitutionality of Drug Testing as 4th & 5th Amendment violations, they too should have random drug tests.
I’m all for more accountability in the legal profession, but why would anyone think this is a good idea?
- Booze and money problems are far bigger contributors to attorney misconduct than illegal drugs. Why not require attorneys to be teetotalers with large bank balances?
- Drug tests reveal drug use; they don’t reveal addiction or impairment that affects performance.
- Drug tests are expensive, and not terribly reliable. Any bar that has the resources to spend on drug testing would be far better off spending that money on more effective training/counseling, complaint investigation or disciplinary enforcement.
- Finally, random drug testing by the government (and the bar IS the government for these purposes) is illegal except in very constrained circumstances — typically “safety-sensitive” positions. There’s nothing about the practice of law that makes it safety-sensitive. Yes, a doped-up attorney could cause harm, but so could a doped-up pizza delivery guy.
Yes, I think lawyers should be used for drug testing.
The genetic make up of lawyers is surprisingly similar to that of humans.
By testing potentially dangerous drugs on lawyers before human trials, the pharmaceutical industry could avoid the ethical challenges (and bad publicity) that comes from doing drug tests on humans or lovable chimpanzees.
@JoshKing Thanks for your comment.
I’m not convinced random drug testing by bar overseers is “illegal.” Supreme court case: Nat’l Treas. Emp. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989) applies to government employees not non-government attorneys. Attorneys (like pilots) choose whether or not to obtain / retain their licenses to practice in a particular jurisdiction which is usually renewed annually. I see no reason why those licensing requirements cannot contain a random drug testing requirement. Are there additional authorities on this point that illuminate your position?
Von Raab would apply here, where licensing is done by the state. Under Von Raab, the state’s interest in drug testing must be balanced against the attorney’s privacy concerns.
And it’s not a close case here. The state doesn’t have a defensible enough interest in testing attorneys. Sure, drugged attorneys can do harm, but so can anyone, in any profession. Consider: The state would have a much stronger interest in randomly drug testing all licensed drivers. Do you think that would ever happen?
Any bar considering this would be completely out to lunch. They’d be buying an expensive program of dubious effectiveness. That program would then be tied up for years in litigation. That litigation would likely end, per Von Raab, in the program being found unconstitutional. Again, not worthy of serious consideration by any real-world regulators.