Or is it over-policing. I go back and forth on the issue. Here is an attorney who is immediately suspended from practice (presumably cannot now receive his normal paycheck) although the constitution declares that he is at this moment in time innocent. I don't know the fellow. I am making no comment about the validity of the charges. I can see where the Supreme Court wants to protect the integrity of the profession. I am with that.
But how does ignoring the constitutional theory of being innocent until proven guilty improve our ethical posture when we are sworn to support the constitution? Another reason for immediate suspension of attorneys is to protect the clients. I am way with that too. But as far as I can see from the news article, even if the allegations are true, it had nothing to do with clients or a fiduciary responsibility.
I just can't fall off of the fence on this one. Someone give me a shove.
