Imalawman wrote: There are very few lawyers who use "Dr.", there are rules for when a lawyer may use that term. Most state bars limit its use to those in the academic setting. Besides we all know how much TPs like the use the prefix "Dr." See, Weston White supra at Dr. Adam Smith and Dr. Ron Paul.
He's not a lawyer any more, is he? How can the Bar (or BAR) ethics affect his statements.
I only use "Dr. Rubin" to get me tables at restaurants, and in credits in appropriate publications. I suppose that if I were to write inappropriate publications, it would be "appropriate" for me to use "Dr. Rubin" there, also.
The Operative wrote:According to this bio, he graduated from Clemson with a BS in Economics with a minor in History in 1969. After serving in Vietnam, he graduated from University of South Carolina School of Law in 1974. With that education, he had a good chance at a decent career in law or economics.
That train has long ago left the tracks, and crashed quite spectacularly.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
In the Matter of Robert Barnwell CLARKSON, Respondent.
No. 20686.
May 15, 1978.
This attorney disciplinary proceeding was initially commenced against Robert Barnwell Clarkson, respondent, in July 1976. He was found by both the Panel and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (Board) to have engaged in unprofessional conduct as follows:
(1) he charged an excessive fee and attempted to bring pressure on a Mr. and Mrs. Norris to pay his fee (although not incurred by them) by filing a second action and a lis pendens against their property after the first action had been dismissed with prejudice; and
(2) he wrongfully withheld a welfare check from a Mrs. Lollis in order to harass her and extend pressure upon her to settle with his client.
The matter came to be presented to this court in June of 1977. Prior to our taking action upon the recommendation of the Board, two matters occurred in the United States District Court of South Carolina, of which judicial notice was taken:
(1) Respondent was indicted on 92 counts for causing to be presented to the Treasury, United States Revenue Service, an agency of the United States, claims, knowing them to be fraudulent, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, ss 287 and 2.
(2) Respondent was on August 16, 1977, cited for contempt of court by the Honorable Charles E. Simons, Jr., United States District Judge.
On October 12, 1977, we filed an interlocutory order affirming the action of the Board in its finding that the respondent had engaged in unprofessional conduct, but withheld sanction pending exploration by the Board of the two matters which had occurred in the United States District Court. In that order we directed that: "The Board shall make its own determination of whether or not the two matters enumerated above constitute unprofessional conduct and, if so, what sanction should be imposed in the light of the proceedings already held and those to be held hereafter."
On October 26, 1977, an amending and supplementing complaint was filed against the respondent, charging further misconduct on his part by reason of charges made and the action taken in the United States District Court. Hearings were held in November, 1977.
By letter, dated February 14, 1978, to the Chief Justice, the respondent submitted his resignation as a member of the bar. In that letter he stated: "Also, I have plead guilty in Federal Court to five felony counts concerning preparation of Income Tax Returns. Further, I have been found in contempt of Court in the US District Court." The offer of resignation was not accepted.
On February 17, 1978, the Executive Committee of the Board submitted its report to this court, recommending that the respondent be disbarred. This was consistent with the recommendations of the hearing Panel.
[1] The matter came to be heard again before this court at the April, 1978, term. At the hearing, respondent's counsel indicated a desire to consent to disbarment as permitted by s 27 of our Rules on Disciplinary Procedure. Section 27 permits an attorney to consent to disbarment provided he complies with the rule. The respondent has, by a written instrument, consented to disbarment, but he has failed to comply with the rule and, accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the matter as though no attempt had been made to consent to disbarment.
[2] At the hearing before us in the April, 1978, term, counsel stated to the court that respondent is now attempting to withdraw his guilty pleas to five counts entered in the United States District Court, and indicated that the contempt of court finding of guilty is now being appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The same has already been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Our finding of misconduct and the sanction hereinafter imposed does not hinge upon the outcome of either the petition to withdraw guilty pleas or the action of the United States Supreme Court since our findings are independent.
In the light of the history of this case, recited hereinabove, we deem it unnecessary to detail the evidence relative to the various offenses which have been proved to the satisfaction of the hearing Panel and the Board and/or Executive Committee. Suffice it to say that we agree that the respondent has been guilty of misconduct as an attorney, in violation of our Rules and in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and agree with the recommendation of the Executive Committee that the respondent should be, and he hereby is disbarred.
It is ordered that the respondent Robert Barnwell Clarkson return the certificate issued by this court, granting him the right to practice law, to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of South Carolina within five days after notice of this directive.
I was aware of Clarkson's disbarment, but I did not know it occurred so shortly after his graduation from law school and I never bothered to look it up. However, if he wasn't bat-s--t crazy and he wasn't a greedy jerk, Clarkson definitely had the education to pursue a career where he could have become decently well-off, if not moderately wealthy.
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
Oh, I definitely agree, Operative. It's a shame that he's nuttier than squirrel crap. He cannot possibly be stupid, after all, based upon his education.
By the way, UGA Lawdog was kind enough in another Clarkson thread to provide the cite I failed to add. Those who are so inclined can look up Clarkson's disbarment at 271 S.C. 5, 244 S.E.2d 512
In the interest of full disclosure, I very strongly dislike Robert Clarkson because of his actions related to Gene Chapman years ago. See, Clarkson actively encouraged Gene to set himself on fire to "end the IRS". Clarkson should have been talking Gene out of it and alerting authorities to save Gene's life if his efforts failed, since he was supposed to be Gene's friend, but he did neither. I'm obviously no fan of Gene Chapman, but I also couldn't just sit by and let the man die a horrible, gruesome death, so I made the calls. No one in the "patriot movement" had done a thing to save Gene from himself, including Clarkson. I know that for a fact, because the police first heard about it from me the night before it was supposed to happen.
I realized that Gene was very deeply depressed and wanted attention, and that was the real reason he was doing it, so why didn't his "friend" see the same thing? Simply stated, he didn't see it because he didn't care. The only thing he cared about was that he would then have a "martyr" for his "cause".
Clarkson and his buddies didn't just encourage Gene to commit a gruesome public suicide, though. That's not even the most disturbing part of the equation. They also planned in advance to celebrate their "victory" by having lunch at a local BBQ joint immediately after watching Gene die an excruciatingly painful fiery death as their "martyr". They canceled their lunch because they were so disappointed that Gene didn't die.
Worst of all, I personally spoke with Clarkson the same day Gene was involuntarily committed. He told me that Gene didn't really want to die. Yet if Gene didn't really want to die, and if Clarkson knew Gene didn't really want to die, why the hell was Clarkson actively encouraging him to die?
Sick, sick, sick, incredibly, disgustingly sick.
So now that I think about it again, it's really an understatement to say I strongly dislike Robert Clarkson. As far as I am concerned, the man is evil personified.
ENM, I had known that Clarkson was peripherally involved in Chapman’s major bout of looniness, but I hadn’t realized he had egged him on and actually encouraged him to the degree he did. I can now see why he is a particular favorite of yours, and deservedly so. Those actions were nothing short of criminal, and in some jurisdictions could, would, and should be prosecuted as such. Clarkson qualifies as a true and immense waste protoplasm, Chapman is just pathetic. It should be no real surprise though since Clarkson is a narcissistic loon whose only concern is, and always be for himself and whatever amusement and power he can get out of a situation, that it was Gene’s immolation he was working towards just makes it all the more disgusting.
I keep wondering how long it will be before the immense one gets the prison sentence he so rightly deserves, that is of course considering that one of his students doesn’t become unhinged after his life is ruined by following his sure fire methods and getting their heads handed to them by the IRS.
One should really think long and hard before taking advice from a disbarred attorney, they usually get that way for a reason.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
ElfNinosMom wrote:Clarkson and his buddies didn't just encourage Gene to commit a gruesome public suicide, though. That's not even the most disturbing part of the equation. They also planned in advance to celebrate their "victory" by having lunch at a local BBQ joint immediately after watching Gene die an excruciatingly painful fiery death as their "martyr". They canceled their lunch because they were so disappointed that Gene didn't die.
I'm almost afraid to ask what Clarkson et al were planning on using to BBQ their food with - a very disturbing picture of a charcoal briquette in the form of Gene Chapman comes to mind.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!
