BPR threatens John Jay Hooker's law license

With hearing set for Friday, the 'unrepentant' reformer who castigates judges faces sanctions for misconduct

Email | Print By Milt Capps

John Jay Hooker

The Tennessee Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility's is scheduled Friday to consider whether or not to impose disciplinary sanctions, possibly including disbarment, against John Jay Hooker, the lawyer, reformer and sometime political candidate.

This week's BPR hearing affords Hooker a forum he could not have rented or sued his way into: Since 2004, the prolific litigant has been effectively deterred from suing "public officials or candidates for public office" in state courts, well into 2009.

Exercising his right, Hooker has requested Friday's BPR hearing be open to the public.

Thus far today, uncertainty still clouds the issue of who, in addition to Hooker, will appear for Friday's hearing.

Tennessee Attorney General Bob Cooper has asked Davidson County Chancery Court to quash subpoenas Hooker obtained to force testimony from TSC Chief Justice William Barker, former Justice A.A. Birch, Davidson County Circuit Court Judge Walter Kurtz, Davidson County Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle and former Attorney General Paul Summers.

A trial judge must hear Cooper's motion to quash, and that judge has apparently not yet been designated.

Hooker's BPR appearance stems from his having provoked enough judges to complain that Hooker engages in ethical misconduct, including 'jamming' courts with 'frivolous' lawsuits and criticizing sitting judges in language that some believe could undermine public respect for the state's judicial system.

During an interview yesterday with NashvillePost.com, Hooker confirmed his detractors' worst fears about the "threat" he poses to public confidence in the judiciary.

Hooker said that in the interest of reform, "Part of my goal is to undermine the confidence of the people in the Supreme Court and to have the people rise up and want to do something about it."

Lest his point be missed, he continued, "I'm not backing-off from the proposition that my mission is to undermine the public's confidence in the Supreme Court — I'm saying that's what needs to be done."

Hooker argues that accusations made against him via the BPR are unfounded, because, he insists, he is not lying; he is using only appropriately strong language; he is not acting in bad faith; he cannot be held to be acting frivolously while citing the Tennessee Constitution as the basis for his allegations; and, ultimately, he cannot be sanctioned by judges who, themselves, deserve to be "indicted" for their own supposedly criminal behavior.

Hooker's admirers often note that his passion for reform is not new.

In 1958, Gov. Frank G. Clement asked Hooker to become involved in an investigation of Raulston Schoolfield, a Chattanooga Criminal Court judge who was eventually impeached by the state House and convicted in the Senate.

That episode also galvanized his relationship with then-Nashville Tennessean investigative reporter John Seigenthaler, who covered the Schoolfield affair and went on to become editor of the newspaper and, much later, founder of the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.

Nonetheless, many observers strongly believe Hooker has carried his campaign too far.

Gary Blackburn of Blackburn & McCune said during an interview Friday, "I guess the question becomes, When does dedication to a principle cease and a vain fanatical obsession commence?"

Blackburn said Hooker is mounting "a direct attack on the validity and integrity of [the judicial] institution — no lawyer can be allowed to do that and remain a lawyer."

This morning, after reviewing a BPR summary of complaints against Hooker, Blackburn added that he "would be surprised if there were not at least a suspension of [Hooker's] law license."

John Day of Day & Blair, former president of the Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association, told NashvillePost.com during an interview Wednesday, "You can criticize a judge's holdings, and you can disagree, but at some point you can cross the line... Mr. Hooker is a skilful orator and a 'true believer' ...Unfortunately, he has not accepted the fact that he's lost the case."

During the past decade, Hooker has charged in courts and in public forums that judges who retain their benches under Tennessee's "corrupt system" of yea or nay "retention" elections, rather than through contested popular elections, are serving illegally.

Hooker has also insisted that judges and other elected officials who provide food and drink to their campaigns' donors and voters are breaking the state's bribery laws.

Courts rejected the argument each time Hooker sued then-Governors Ned Ray McWherter, Don Sundquist and Gov. Phil Bredesen on these grounds.

Hooker has focused much of his criticism on Circuit Court Judge Walter Kurtz.

At several points, Hooker has characterized Kurtz as a "dishonest judge," and has argued that Kurtz' spouse, Davidson County Chancery Court Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle, is inevitably also among the beneficiaries of the election and fundraising issues Hooker continues to challenge.

In 2004, Kurtz ordered restraints on Hooker's access to Tennessee courts for a five-year period, in the interest of preventing Hooker from "re-litigating" issues that courts are deemed to have settled. Earlier, Hooker had drawn a similar two-year sanction.

Kurtz' order, which will be at the center of Friday's hearing, said Hooker has employed "allegations and invectives" that are not only "reprehensible," but also "scandalous, impertinent, improper, and demeaning..."

Kurtz wrote that, through it all, Hooker has remained unrepentant.

Hooker said yesterday, "If I have knowingly made some untrue statement about a judge, I ought to be disbarred." Hooker said he believes everything he has said.