p.s.:

Note who's defending Herb. Ralph Harwell is as good as lawyers get. Unsung hero IMO.

"a little-known rule drafted by local federal judges"

Huh? Both the notion of judges drafting rules and "local federal" sound oxymoronic to me.

Rags2010, I heard Moncier speak to a group of Democrats once, and he said he was a Republican. He has voted in more Republican primaries than Dem. Likewise, Harwell votes more often as a Republican, even in Presidential primaries. Also, Collier's appointment happened just as Republicans took control of the Senate in 1994, and Fred Thompson and Bill Frist both sponsored his nomination. Even if interpreting this in a partisan light weren't stupid, you still got it wrong.

The article does not reference whether Moncier actually opposed keeping the hearing secret. I don't think that disciplinary matters with the Board of Professional Responsibility are open to the public, and it may be that Collier is following that example, and that Moncier did not object. If he did object, it should be in the file, and if he had a problem with the secrecy, he would have objected, I would think.

The Local Rules are usually proposed with notice to the bar, who has an opportunity to comment, and I wonder whether this was done and whether Moncier opposed the rule change.

See here, and more specifically here (Page 92) for the relevant rules.

Judges have common-law powers to enact rules for the conduct of their courts. The Code of Professional Conduct that governs attorney ethical behavior was not enacted by the legislature - it's a Rule enacted by the Tennessee Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has enected a plethora of such rules, which cover everything from admission to the bar to the appointment of Guardians ad Litem in juvenile justice cases. There are also local rules that govern the ways matters are handles in the Knox County Circuit, Chancery and criminal courts. Those rules are formulated by the local judges (under rules established by the Supreme Court) and can vary quite widely from court to court. The way divorces are handled in Fourth Circuit Court, for instance, are very different from the way they are handled in the Chancery Courts.

The federal courts similarly have the power to enact rules for practice in their courts, and the document I linked above is the result of that rulemaking power. Every lawyer who practices in a court is expected to know and comport themselves with those local rules. There's nothing really all that mysterious about this, or at least not to practicing attornies.

As to why hearings like the one at issue are sealed, that's a question best left to the federal court judges. I do know that until recently all matters before the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility - the ethics board for lawyers - were secret as well. I suspect that this was mainly for the protection of attornies, who don't want to have their reputations sullied by frivolous charges filed by angry clients (or opponents). The results of BPR investigations were always made public - just not the processes that led to those results.

I guess finally to answer Rikki's question about why the hearing was in front of a judge and not in front of a professional board, the answer I think is that practice in the federal courts is considered to be a privelege, not a right. Gradualtion from law school and passage of the bar does not entitle you to practice in the federal courts - you have to ask for permission, and have that permission granted by the local presiding federal judge. Go to most trial attornies' offices and you will see separate documents on the wall granting permission from the state supreme court to practice in the state courts and from the federal courts granting permission to practice in the federal courts. In fact, practicing in all of the federal courts requires THREE applications and permissions - one from the district courts, one from the Court of Appeals, and finally permission from the U.S. Supreme Court if one wishes to practice there. Such permission is generally granted pro forma, but it can be taken away. The Eastern District of Tennessee federal courts have apparently arrogated to themselves the power to revoke that permission, and per the local rules established a procedure for doing so.

I do know of one local lawyer who was once banned for a year from practice in the Eastern District federal courts for allegedly violating a court order not to participate in abortion clinic protests. Courts have wide latitude to set the standards of behavior they expect from attornies that practice before them, and that authority sometimes gets exercised.

Funny that McElroy isn't open about the KNS and its past association with Moncier. Maybe the problem isn't fairness, but a conflict of interest.