Happy Labor Day Weekend. Since it’s been a while, please forgive me if I forgot how to do this….I just wanted to provide an update on a few things. Since everyone hate long posts, below is a video with my comments (which may include both an embedded video and a Rumble link that probably won’t work), but I’ll also add a few comments before then…
Folks, meet my new man-crush, Hon. Caleb Stegall….💞💞💞
Caleb is a current justice on the Kansas Supreme Court. He melted my heart today with a concurring opinion he filed last year in a state bar discipline case: In re Valdez, 321 Kan. 198 (Aug. 29, 2025) (Word) (PDF).
In Valdez, a prosecutor (the elected county attorney) was punished for her criticism of a judge. The prosecutor appealed her punishment to the Kansas Supreme Court. Last summer, she WON complete and total vindication. All charges dismissed.
After the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in her favor, Justice Stegall wrote a concurring opinion to add some insight to the issues. His decision should be required reading for EVERY employee of the State Bar of Arizona.
There are so many quotable lines in here, I can’t include them all, but here’s a sample (again, this is a Supreme Court justice saying this shit, although I couldn’t have said it better myself):
I have said it before, but it bears repeating—the practice of law is not a finishing school for debutants preparing for their first dance. See In re Gamble, 319 Kan. 680, 695, 558 P.3d 290 (2024) (Stegall, J., dissenting) (“ ‘There’s no crying in baseball!’ So intoned Tom Hanks’ character in the film A League of Their Own [Columbia Pictures 1992]. It is a message the Kansas bar and bench—and our Disciplinary Administrator’s office—should consider.”); In re Davis, 318 Kan. 199, 247, 542 P.3d 339 (2024) (Stegall, J., concurring) (“[I]t does the judicial branch no favors to present publicly with a collective glass chin.”). Miss Manners has much to commend her within a polite and respectful society, but we are not her enforcement division.
This is not, however, what is most important about today’s case. There is much more at stake—the beating heart of our democratic process—unconstrained political speech. There is a disturbing trend in our body politic to turn “ethics” into a political widow maker—a recently dislodged calcium deposit stalking the arterial system of our campaigns, elections, and government—threatening a blockage at any time. The rallying cry of, “You can’t say that!” accompanied by looming threats of punishment is a kind of atherosclerosis—a narrowing of our political arteries—that I cannot countenance.
DAMN. But he kept going —
Protecting “public confidence in the legal system” does not require dogmatic silence by attorneys working in that system—especially when attorneys are bringing attention to perceived problems and inequities. The practice of law, by nature, is adversarial. Punishing attorneys for voicing their criticisms serves to undermine the rule of law rather than bolster it and creates the impression that “judges can dish but they can’t take.” Davis, 318 Kan. at 247, 542 P.3d 339 (Stegall, J., concurring). “The First Amendment is not abridged for the benefit of the Brotherhood of the Robe.” Williams-Yulee, 575 U.S. at 473, 135 S.Ct. 1656 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
Holy shit. Tell us how you really feel, Caleb……which he then did:
I fear the continuing chill on attorney speech in Kansas by the well-meaning but aggressive action of the ODA to take up the cause of bruised judicial feelings and punish all manner of “discourtesies.” To which I can only say, “Stop it!” Kansas judges are not so delicate. We will not wilt in the face of lawyer criticism—or even an uncouth comment or name-calling. We retain the traditional tools of regulating our courtrooms through contempt or Rule 11 proceedings. Davis, 318 Kan. at 247, 542 P.3d 339 (Stegall, J., concurring). And most importantly, public trust in the legitimacy of the rule of law can only be harmed by a defensive posture reminiscent of petty gangsters and warlords surrounded by enforcers. In a mature democracy, fragility in leadership sows only distrust. We can and should do better.
I mean, let’s hear that again, for you folks in back: “In a mature democracy, fragility in leadership sows only distrust.” So a Republican judge in a very conservative state clearly understands that in a freedom-loving democracy, the First Amendment still means something. And it means lawyers CAN criticize judges (as long as they don’t lie). Damn right, Caleb.
Well shucks, we may not be in Kansas anymore, but perhaps the Arizona Supreme Court would do well to heed Caleb’s warning. If not, we’ll see what SCOTUS has to say….