Document Type

Article

Publication Date

4-15-2006

Abstract

  • This matter stemmed from Jerry O’Neil’s appeal from an order of the Blackfeet Tribal Court barring him from practicing in the Tribal Court.  

  • On February 23, 2006, Tribal Judge Johnson issued an order, sua sponte, requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred from practicing as an attorney/advocate in Blackfeet Tribal Court. O'Neil moved to quash the show cause order, and with a supporting memorandum attached a copy of his certificate of admission to practice and the relevant Blackfeet Law and Order Code that explains what attorneys must due when seeking admission to practice in Blackfeet Court. The memo also suggests that Judge Johnson issued the order because O’Neil defended someone against a complaint filed by the chief prosecutor’s son. The son and defendant were involved in a custody dispute, and in O'Neil's motion to dismiss the complaint had suggested that because the son’s father was Chief prosecutor the charges could be levied against the son. The chief prosecutor, father, then moved to have O’Neil disbarred. 

  • The Tribal Court judge declined to act on the motion, but Judge Johnson later sua sponte ordered O’Neil to show cause as to why he should not be disbarred. There was no response on file to O'Neil's motion to quash complaint, no response to his writ of mandamus seeking to stop all proceedings looking toward his disbarment, and no response to his motion seeking a stay of all proceedings for his client pending the outcome of his petition for a writ of mandamus.  

  • On April 27, 2006, Judge Johson issued his findings of fact for disbarring O’Neil, reasoning that he was not a graduate of any law school and was not admitted to practice before the highest court of any state or the U.S Supreme Court. Judge Johnson also relies, -------, on how “lay” does not appear before the noun “advocate” in Blackfeet code, meaning that a person is required to have graduated from law school but have not passed the Bar Exam. 

  • This Appeals Court in this case address only the issue of whether Judge Johnson's interpretation of Rule 10 of Chapter 9 is correct. 

  • There was no relevant Blackfeet case law, so the Court looked to Montana state case law. There, under Lovell v. State Compensation Mut. Ins. Fund., the Montana Court states that a provision in a statute must be construed in order of its plain meaning; because of that, the way that Judge Johnson interpreted “advocate” to mean only a law school graduate waiting to take the bar is incorrect.  

  • Absent any accusation of misconduct on O’Neil’s part, the Court reversed the order disbarring O’Neil. 

Download

Share

COinS