Jane, you ignorant slut!

That hasnt' appeared in a judicial opinion--at least not yet.

It used to be that attorneys were the ones that subject to criticism for their lack of professionalism. The scorched earth litigation mentality, the unethical client solicitation, and their general ugliness to each other--unnecessary for the zealous representation of clients, brought disgrace on the profession as a whole. There was much gnashing of teeth and many states adopted professionalism creeds.

What the heck is going on when it's the judges who are in need of reminding that we are supposed to aspire to a higher level of discourse, more fitting for members of a learned profession? CNN recently ran this story.

I don't think that all of the comments highlighted by the CNN article rise to the level of personal attacks, but they do represent a disturbing trend that has been going on for several years now. What's happening in the 10th Court of Appeals is, in my opinion, even more disturbing. For example, this statement appeared in a dissenting opinion:

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” Proverbs 26:11. As the majority did in 2005, . . . the majority again reverses Pena's conviction . . ."

Pena v. State, 2007 WL 1289426). Citing the Bible doesn't make it okay. In the same case, the same judge refers to the majority opinion as a "mediocre law-review article." The Trib recently ran an article that described in more detail what's going on with the 10th Court.

It's bad enough that talk radio often consists of little more than ad hominem attacks. Surely, the judiciary can do better--they're judges, for goodness sake. They should act like it! Opinions should certainly address disagreements on the law or its application. But engaging in personal attacks is unbecoming to the judiciary; it doesn't go well with the black robe. We, the litigants, the citizens, and the attorneys, deserve better discourse than what one learns in the Ann Coulter school of debate.

I thnk this definition of professionalism states it well:

"[P]rofessionalism is a higher standard [than the rules of ethics] expected of all lawyers. Professionalism imposes no official sanctions. It offers no official reward. Yet, sanctions and rewards exist unofficially. Who faces a greater sanction than lost respect? Who faces a greater reward than the satisfaction of doing right for right's own sake?" Harold G. Clark, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia.

It'd be nice if certain judges remembered that.