*1 (3) intended; party it was so must be facts to show that the bank would have been (4) facts; ignorant of the true state of estopped recovering from guaranty, on his rely injury.” upon must the conduct to his meaning government obtained Rom- Trustees, Cal.Rptr. (quotation at 193 guaranty subject bach’s to that pre-existing omitted). infirmity. Rombach has made several factual III. CONCLUSION preclude summary judgment assertions that estoppel. repre on the issue of The bank Material regarding issues of fact remain permitted sented that Rombach would be delay in demanding payment SBA’s from guaranty resigned revoke his once he his Rombach and whether the bank would have position Orangematie. with Rombach then estopped been collecting from Rom- wrote a letter bank in to the which he re bach. Accordingly, judgment we vacate the guaranty voked his and indicated the bank below and remand for proceedings. further any questions; should contact him if it had During the bank did not contact Rombach. official,
conversation with a bank Rombach
was told the bank had received his letter.
seeming acknowledgement of its earlier
promise, stopped requiring the bank Rom provide personal
bach to financial state required prior it
ments to his revocation. Finally, payment guarantors from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT sought, guarantors except all the Rom THE FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF initially. bach were contacted These asser WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellee, tions, light viewed in the most favorable to
Rombach, preclude entry are sufficient to issue; summary judgment on this further SANDLIN, Respondent- John Jarrette fact-finding is warranted. Appellant. government repre- contends the oral No. 91-36251. sentations made Union Bank are unen- 122.20(c)(1977) § forceable because 13 C.F.R. Appeals, United States Court of (currently § codified at 13 C.F.R. 120.201-1 Ninth Circuit. (1993)) provides lending that the institution 10, Argued and Submitted June 1993. agree cannot alterations in thé term of guaranty prior, without the written con- Decided Dec. 1993. sent of holding today the SBA. Our is not in regulation. conflict with this If the sole basis estoppel
advanced for was the oral state- official,
ments made the bank we would not rule in Rombach’s favor. Benson v. Cf. Admin.,
Small Business 644 F.2d
(9th Cir.1981). Similarly, the fact that Rom- expressing
bach wrote a letter his intent to guaranty
revoke his would be no than more -and, anticipatory alone, breach would not grounds However, estoppel.
create for an factors,
these combined the other facts above, questions
we described raise serious
about the in enticing bank’s conduct Rom- sign guaranty
bach to to his obvious ease,
detriment. Under the facts of this may prove
Rombach be able to sufficient *2 Sandlin, pro se.
John Jarrette Justice, Letter, Dept, of Douglas U.S. DC, petitioner-appellee. Washington, LEAVY, BRUNETTI, Before: TROTT, Judges. Circuit LEAVY, Judge: Circuit (Sandlin) appeals John Jarrette Sandlin suspending him the district court’s order practice as a member of the bar of the District Court for Eastern United States Washington months for District of for six 1.2(f)(2) violating of the Local Rules of Rule that court and Rule of the Rules Professional Conduct of the by stating, falsely or State Bar Association disregard the statements’ reckless as to falsity, that States District truth or United motion, it, Alan A. transcript. McDonald ordered Ms court sal ordered materially reporter reported saying: alter a tran- McDonald is as tape recording. script and We AFFIRM. The Court does not feel the least bit sitting
uncomfortable on this matter. *3 The Court has known Mr. Smith and Ms BACKGROUND brother. The Court has had the distinct genesis of this unfortunate incident is knowmg honor of their father before them attempt unsuccessful to have Sandlin’s Umt- expect and would them to know that tMs Judge ed States District Alan A. McDonald impartially Court any would rule without recused a civil case in wMch Sandlin Now, concern about that fact get at all. on During hearing served as defense counsel. to the issues of the case. temporary order, restraining on a Richard added.) (Emphasis Quackenbush Judge de- (Smith), Allen Smith CMef Executive Officer motion, Med finding Sandlin’s recusal plaintiff corporation, of a was called as a support “the record does not the claim that approached witness. As Smith the witness Judge McDonald indicated at the TRO hear- stand, Judge exchanged he and McDonald ing predisposed that he was to believe that greeting according ap- which to Sandlin Mr. Smith will tell truth.” peared to be that of friends. Based on his Sandlin moved for reconsideration. Prior observations, began questiomng Sandlin motion, hearing to the on his Sandlin listened relationsMp Judge Smith about his Mc- tape recording to the of hearing. the TRO Judge stopped Donald. McDonald' Sandlin’s Kaye Blankenship (BlankensMp), Judge Mc- inquiry, commenting that Sandlin was “not reporter, present Donald’s court was conducting discovery in this as Court a basis tape recording. Sandlin listened to the She for a motion for recusal.” Sandlin then told Sandlin that she made certain editorial .Judge divulge any asked per- McDonald to changes transcript Judge at Mc- relationsMp Judge sonal he had with Smith. moving Donald’s direction. for reconsid- responded: McDonald eration, tape Sandlin asserted that both the The Court does not feel the least bit recording hearing of the TRO and the tran- sitting uncomfortable on on tMs matter. script hearing “materially were Mac- The Court has known Mr. Smith and his Judge curate” in that “where McDonald said brother. The Court has had the distinct he knew that Mr. Smith would tell the truth knowing honor of their father before them lie,, my or that he wouldn’t immediate expect expect and would them to that this said, response ‘Well, where I I Mr. believe impartially any Court would rule without truth, so,’ hope Smith would tell the at I least Now, get concern about that fact at all. on missmg.” are to the issues of the case. n BlankensMp reported Because was to have added.) (Emphasis changes stated that she made in the tran- script, Judge Quackenbush allowed Sandlrn Sandlin filed a recusal motion. His motion depose During deposition, her. her based, on the affidavit of his part, BlankensMp practice testified that her was to client, (Strait), John E.’ Strait who averred transcripts Judge prior submit McDonald that, during hearing, Judge the TRO Mc- filing that, BlankensMp them. also said “gave opinion Donald that he believed order, Judge changed McDonald’s she Richard A. Smith would be honest and tell expect expect” “would them to to “would truth, or words to that effect.” Sandlin’s expect them to know” the TRO upon motion was also based the fact transcript. said she did not delete She prior becoming a Urnted States District language transcript alleged by from the as Judge, Judge represented had McDonald Sandlin. wrongful Smith’s brother in a death action following the Blankenship’s deposition, death of Ms son. Because the Before Sandlin (Det- parties disputed during what telephoned Agent was said John Detlor lor). hearing, Urnted States District Justin The district court found that Quackenbush, presided L. who over the recu- told Detlor that the of the TRO 1.2(f)(2) of thé Local Rules inaccurate, violating Rule Mc-
hearing was (L.R.) District Court Blankenship the United States for to alter ordered Donald Judge’s Washington and Rule it of the state- District of transcript by purging the Eastern 8.2(a) veracity of the adverse of Professional Conduct regarding the of the Rules ment allega- reported Sandlin’s Detlor Bar Association witness. State (Moul- 1.2(f)(2) (WSRPC). Moulton supervisor, requires Jason that attor- tions to L.R. ton). Sandlin, who re- telephoned Moulton the United Dis- neys appearing before States allegations. peated his District of Wash- trict Court for the Eastern ington the WSRPC. WSRPC observe Beatty, an telephoned William also states: (AUSA) Attorney United States Assistant *4 Washington. The District of the Eastern lawyer make a statement that A shall not Beatty told court found Sandlin district lawyer false or with reck- knows to be evi- “tampering with the report to wished falsity disregard its truth or as to less then re- by Judge McDonald. He dence” integrity, or concerning qualifications, regarding alteration of peated allegations his adjudicatory officer or judge, of a record transcript, adding that hearing the TRO officer, legal or of a candidate for public criminal and Judge conduct was McDonald’s judicial legal appointment to or election or he had prosecuted. Sandlin stated should be office, tape recording experts, who two retained Judge hearing A was held on McDonald’s recording tape of the find that would court disciplinary petition. The district hearing been altered. had also TRO no reasonable basis found that Sandlin had Quackenbush Judge had allowed Sandlin making his statements fact for recording hear- tape of the TRÓ listen to the Beat- Agents Detlor and Moulton and AUSA employees of the ing experts, with his both ty regarding McDonald’s intentional of station. The affidavits local television tape record- of the alteration that, although essentially agreed both men further concluded ing. The district court possibility of an audio “there was a distinct to United that Sandlin’s statements States edit,” certainty of one.” not the there “was Attorney Lamp made without basis were testing. Despite suggested Both additional disregard to their in fact and with reckless as telephoned John suggestion, Sandlin this Finally, found that Sandlin’s truth. the court Attorney East- Lamp, for the United States Attorney Lamp statements United States Washington. The district ern District of alter- experts two his confirmed Lamp repeated to court found Sandlin knowingly tape recording ation of the were regarding Judge McDonald’s ma- allegations facts, ¡false. conclud- These the district court TRO tran- terial alteration of the ed, by preponder- a clear were established Lamp informed that his script, also Sandlin evidence and ordered that Sand- ance of the tape experts had that the record- confirmed suspended practice for six lin be ing hearing had been altered and that months. had ordered he was certain McDonald appeal, contends he did not In his the .alterations. 8.2(a) or, if a violation oc- violate WSRPC allegations made to As a result of Sandlin’s curred, no is allowed because sanction Jury Attorney Lamp, a Grand United States speech protected is the First Amendment. subpoena Blankenship’s for steno- was issued tape recording of the type notes and the
hearing. independent examination of An DISCUSSION FBI in- no alteration. The both revealed Review I. Standard of that, having found no basis formed Sandlin allegations tape that the record- for Sandlin’s reviews a district This Court altered, its ing stenotype notes had been findings support of a disci court’s of fact investigation was closed. Standing plinary order for clear error. See Comm, Discipline States United Judge McDonald thereafter filed a Petition of Ross, the S. Dist. Cal. Disciplinary accusing of Dist. Court for Action of for
865
(9th Cir.),
denied,
1168,
F.2d
1170
Disciplinary
735
cert.
Burden of Proof.
counsel
1081,
583,
469 U.S.
105 S.Ct.
Under
to
applied.
standard
be
and its
have been
See
Kaiser,
applied
in disciplinary hearings is a
“clear
re
111 Wash.2d
that, petition, the filing absent if his Sandlin contends even not have petition raised would issues terms of violate the strict statements brought to attention. public’s been 8.2(a), there because is no violation WSRPC protected First reject argument. While are under the Sandlin’s his statements
We petition charge with has re disciplinary Supreme did Sandlin Amendment. The Court statement, govern making public cently “disciplinary it also referred rules a stated 8.2(a), require- punish activi ing legal profession which contains no cannot WSRPC Amendment, be made ty protected ment that the statement at issue First and Donohoe survives publicly. protection Cases such as Kaiser First Amendment [the] public e.g., campaign attorney disciplin a involve do even violates statements — However, obey case was ary advertisements. neither rule he swore when admitted — 8.2(a). Moreover, Gentile, practice of law.” U.S. at decided under WSRPC 8.2(a) Kaiser, applies -, opines at 2734. neither that WSRPC 111 S.Ct. See also lawyer is only public Nonetheless, statements. at a P.2d once 397. bar, although he does not admitted to the argues also did not accuse that he expression, freedom must surrender his he record; altering Judge McDonald of pro temper his criticisms in accordance with rather, Blankenship. He his “attack” was on fessional standards conduct. does points disciplinary petition out that the charge attacking Judge him Mc- lawyer not with prohibit does all WSRPC not Donald, rather, attacking “judi- judges, only but or that which is false criticism argues that before disregard cial truth is made with reckless its officer.” punished for critical of can be statements falsity. that his state- or Sandlin contends *6 official, spe- government he must particular false ments were not and malicious because: identify target (1) cifically was, as the transcript that official Blankenship admitted (2) fact, edited; his criticisms. of state- in his attribution Judge made in the ments to were McDonald correctly disciplin- that the *7 statements knowledge were made with actual clearly findings. waiting err in its Without falsity. of their Donohoe was decided under depose to Blankenship, telephoned 8-102, lawyer DR which “A reads: shall not alleged Judge the FBI and that McDonald knowingly make false statements of fact con- Blankenship had ordered to alter the tran cerning qualifications the of a candidate for script by purging it of McDonald’s appointment judicial election or to a office.” veracity statements of in his belief the of the added.) Donohoe, (Emphasis After Wash- , telephoned adverse witness. Sandlin' later 8.2, ington adopted WSRPC which is based Beatty, repeating allegations AUSA and on the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional stating McDonald’s conduct was (RPC). 8.2(a) Conduct WSRPC differs prosecuted. criminal and should be Com DR requirements: 8-102 in its scienter spe- (in Westfall, pare 808 at S.W.2d 838 assess cifically, incorporates WSRPC 8.2 the broad- ing appropriate sanction for violation of RPC n er intent standard of New York Times. 8.2(a), respondent court noted that did not conduct). judge context, accuse of criminal Even ab
In the defamation we have regarding sent subjective stated that actual Sandlin’s statements altera malice is a stan testing publisher’s transcript, finding dard tion of the a a good the faith of violation belief in the truth of of his or her WSRPC is warranted. The district statements. Crane (9th Republic, 1511, 1523 knowingly Arizona 972 F.2d court found that Sandlin made Cir.1992). Supreme Lamp false Courts of Missouri statements to USA that his two and Minnesota light experts have determined in the alteration of the confirmed compelling by state tape recording. say interests served We cannot the district 8.2(a), applied RPC the standard to clearly finding. be is not court in erred this explain, imposed the on of discretion in the I believe sanction we find no abuse
Since excessive, sanction, manifestly and I district Mr. Sandlin was court’s of the district choice and re- imposed would the sanction order reverse court’s is nothing mand for more severe than a written AFFIRMED. reprimand. TROTT, Judge, Concurring and Circuit genesis respect, the of this unfor With all Dissenting: handling imperfect the tunate incident was judge personal the (cid:127) of his relation district impartial only be in his judge A not must ship According with witness Mr. Smith. the case, judge a approach but must or her unchallenged statement Mr. Sandlin partiality. appearance of Can- also avoid approached in an as Mr. report Smith 2B. of the of Conduct for United on Code stand, judge the witness the district part Judges in as fol- relevant States reads other, heads, “smiled at each nodded their lows: greeted verbally.” other This each social, family, judge A not allow should by Judge Leavy appeared greeting as noted judicial relationships or other to influence of to Mr. to be friends. judge [A conduct or should judgment. observations, convey impression they ... Based on these Mr. Sandlin not] subject special inquired of of his position are influence the Mr. Smith judge. Here judge. relationship with the district from the unedited record is how it went: it, puts Wright As Charles “Because the Alan Smith, Q you’re [By Sandlin] Mr. Mr. judge given power such extensive federal is him, plaintiff, Officer Chief Executive of litigation especially it is over before Linen, Crystal in this only case? important that be but seem im- he not Courts,” of Federal partial.” Wright, “Law A Yes. added). 455(a) § (emphasis § 28 U.S.C. Q you personally Do know Alan Mc- disqualification judge pertaining to of a Donald, Judge in this case? says, “Any judge disqualify ... shall ... A Yes. any impar- in which proceeding himself Q you him the Have socialized with at questioned.” tiality might reasonably be Country Club— antiseptic Anything approach less than this jus.t THE COURT: a minute. Counsel— judging public undermines confidence all What is this about? system justice, public and without our Well, Honor, I MR. SANDLIN: Your sys- fairness of confidence the basic our you any or need to know whether not have tem, it would crumble. This one of soon personal relationship or Mr. Smith inescapable history lessons parties— other Santayana noted historian admonishes us to *8 conducting THE You’re not dis- COURT: respect, reap or harvest that the follows. covery as a motion in this court basis for a willing accept losing Most of us are recusal; totally improper. that’s fairly court we the contest has been believe if run, it if proverbial but is to the streets we right. All MR. Then for the SANDLIN: given a believe we have not been fair shake. Honor, record, I if in fact your would ask' you personal relationship have a social do observes, Judge Leavy As this case does you with Mr. that should be Smith feel indeed involve unfortunate inci- series of it be disclosed—that disclosed? that dents. There little doubt Mr. is discovery change of a THE The court not feel the overreacted COURT: does (sic) hearing. Leavy’s sitting the least uncomfortable on bit analysis, of breach of L.R. this matter. The Court has known Mr. Mr. Sandlin’s brother., 1.2(f)(2) surely has had and correct. Smith and his The Court WSRPC Nevertheless, I knowing now the honor of their father for reasons will distinct Kirk, seven-page' Special Agent E. 1. Sandlin's a FBI Oris admitted Exhibit Report objection. of a .Mr. statement made Sandlin to evidence without expect before them and would them to and his In circumstances, client. these- a expect that this impar- judge Court would rule would be well notify advised to the tially any without concern about that opposing party fact personal of his relationship Now, get at all. on to party’s the issues of the with opponent thé before it becomes case. an issue. you Judge. MR. Thank- SANDLIN: Just Third, district, the court told Mr. Sandlin it record, Honor, for the Your request we do “totally was improper” explore for him to you do consider recusal under these this relationship. disagree. I In view of the circumstances. manner which the judge and the witness Well, THE COURT: appro- this isn’t the greeted other, had just each Mr. Sandlin had priate way or time to do Counsel. behalf, every.right on of his client to air this right. MR. SANDLIN: All you, Thank out. He would have been derelict not to Judge. pursue judge it. The himself should have Q [By Mr. Sandlin] Mr. Smith— taken the initiative to clear air. the THE you COURT: Didn’t remove this Fourth, the district judge wrong was when case to this court?' he told Mr. inquiry Sandlin his was not time- Yes,
.MR. Judge. SANDLIN: I did ly. Ordinarily this assessment would have THE All right. COURT: true, been it but was not until Mr. Smith was MR. any SANDLIN: I was not aware of greeted by the judge district that Mr. Sand- relationship you social might have. grounds lin had for concern. Should Mr. my respectful judgment, the district Sandlin have waited until judge , following made the mistakes. over? What option other viable did he have? temporary The issue of the restraining order First, by greeting acknowledgment and. was in the balance. The issue of recusal had Smith, of Mr. judge the district demonstrat- just (which arisen. 28 U.S.C. sections 144 relationship ed a with a witness which one “whenever”) uses the word and 455 must be rationally could personal conclude was both permit litigant construed to opportunity Any and lawyer favorable. in Mr. Sandlin’s explore judge’s partiality issue position concerned, would have reason to be unexpectedly arises. I note at all times inquire. and reason to A judge must'not Mr. polite Sandlin was non-argumenta- and display partiality I’m witness. certain accepted tive. He judge’s admonition to it judge’s so, was not the intention to do but drop subject and went on with the hear- nonetheless it attracted Mr. Sandlin’s atten- ing. tion. Second, realizing instead of impact hearing, however, After the and at the appearance just created, he had the dis- behest of judge’s his client who believed the trict judge sharply reacted somewhat behavior partial had been towards trying blocked Mr. Smiths, Sandlin from to find if out Mr. Sandlin discovered that the dis- problem there was a beyond that went ap- judge trict in private practice while rep- pearances. Moreover, dousing instead of resented Mr. Smith’s brother and current co- concern, flames of Mr. Sandlin’s the district plaintiff laundry owner of the wrongful in a judge inappropriately brought Mr. Smith’s death Having action. been shunted aside in picture father into suggested it brought was a court up when he recusal and told distinct honor to have known him. This can judge the district timing- that his method and *9 only witness, be playing seen as to the be- inappropriate, were Mr. Sandlin then filed a cause Mr. Smith’s father —and whether it formal nothing motion for recusal. I can find anwas honor to have known him —had noth- so far that merits criticism or censure of Mr. ing Yes, whatsoever to do with the case. may Such a Sandlin. he have misheard or mis- clearly statement specter raises the interpreted comments, of favor- judge’s the district Moreover, itism. what Mr. Smith and his what judge say but the district did. was en- family might they expect tirely know could appre- consistent Mr. Sandlin’s judge the imputed cannot be to Mr. Sandlin judge favorably that the district hension judge. family, including sympathize then- I with the district the Smith
disposed to no doubt he in the There is ruled as father. would, and as he impartially he said he saw light came to which another mistake Then Moreover, there is no the law and facts. judge district everything: aggravated evidence in the record that substantial he change transcript of the in the ordered a transcript deleted from the a state- ordered by reporter. hearing, called “do-overs” would be ment to the effect that Smith a practice in his this was routine Apparently truthful witness. No one likes to have his however, procedure, for This is court. integrity questioned the district as no doubt justification no even there is lawful which judge doing believed Mr. Sandlin was court changes may have been “editori- though the began inquiry his when he of Mr. Smith. substantively significant. 28 not al” and Sandlin, whose have been well Mr. mistakes 753(b) the official contemplates § U.S.C. exposed by Judge Leavy, a for- has written transcript nothing be short of verbatim. shall apology judge. mal letter of to the district retrospect, judge I will believe the district not to the newspa- then Mr. Sandlin went recognize he cre- appearance the unintended to the author- pers public soapbox, or the but circumstances, I would also ated. Under responsible alleged miscon- ities official severity hope that of the sanction im- FBI, Attorney,' the and the duct: the U.S. Quackenbush by Judges and McNi- posed Integrity Divi- Section of the Criminal Public be and that it chols- would reconsidered Department He is of Justice. sion reprimand. reduced a written would be the First certainly correct when he cites has a proposition for the that he Amendment for a re-
right petition Government may grievances. Although have
dress proof his
far exceeded and misstated
case, reporting alter- he cannot be faulted for proper in an official to the
ations Moreover, Mr. did noth-
authorities. denigrate the honor of the ing publicly Ruby Asque; CHARLES; Bette M. Wil judge. parties to or the district court Burns, liam On behalf of Themselves go keep he did are bound the law to whom similarly situated, Plaintiffs- and others Indeed, inquiry private. none of this their Appellants, public until Mc- became information lodged against Mr. complaint Donald
Sandlin. Secretary GARRETT, III, H. Lawrence Navy, Defendant-Appellee.
Thus, entirely the district court was not responsibility Had without for this situation. No. 92-15743. court been more sensitive to its own Appeals, United States Court of conduct, probably would this situation most Ninth Circuit. out not have lurched of control. Because draconian, suspension I be- sanction of is so Argued and 1993. Submitted Oct. under these circumstances it is mani- lieve Decided Dec. 1993. festly proportion out of to the offense. Surely enjoys being investigat- of us none Integrity the FBI and Public Sec-
ed But, we contributed to our
tion. have problem, we not as
own must see ourselves ourselves, would like to see but as others
we us,
might especially see when we create *10 menacing to
appearance
partiality
that is
people
legal
control.
whose
fates we
Sandlin
notes
(3)
occurred;
they
wit-
good faith belief
-and
him
ary petition
specifically charge
does not
colloquy
his
in
memory
nesses verified
of the
However,
Judge
attacking
with
McDonald.
Judge
his
allegedly
which
McDonald
stated
reading
petition
reveals that
fair
that
veracity
belief in the
of the adverse -witness.
charged
violating
Sandlin was
with
WSRPC
Judge
by making false
about
8.2
statements
argument
first
is without
Sandlin's
McDonald.
editing
disputed
be
merit.
It cannot
that
argument
transcript
attack was
the con
Sandlin’s
that his
an official court
without
However,
sup-
parties
actually
Blankenship
prohibited.
find some
of the
does
sent
example,
disciplined
FBI’s
for
port in the record. For
contends
cannot be
Sandlin
complaint
“Kay Blankenship”
allegations regarding
form
un-
of the
lists
alteration
“Subject’s
Blankenship
name
aliases.” That com-
because
admitted to
der
and
record
Judge
substituting
plaint
alleged
making
changes e.g.,
states that Sandlin
“that
editorial
—
for,
(sic)
(sic)
“expect”
“expect
inten-
them to
MacDonalds
clerk
recorder
“know”
(unreadable)
this,
that
tionally deleted
comment
From
concludes
know.”
Sandlin
Nonetheless,
transcript.”
transcript
rec-
not ver
from the
his assertion that
finding
supports
correct.
ord also
the district court’s
batim was
As the Government
out,
only
Agents
points
stated
FBI
Moulton
this was not the
alteration
that Sandlin
Detlor,
Lamp
complained
hearing
Beatty,
AUSA
USA
of. In a
before
and
and
Sandlin
Blankenship
Judge Quackenbush,
himself stated
Judge
that
McDonald ordered
Sandlin
May
only change
materially
transcript
alter
of the
if the
was the substi
that
made
such,
say
“by
itself
hearing.
“expect”
As
cannot
tution of “know”
that
8th
we
finding
any
me
at all.”
clearly
district court
would not cause
concern
erred
said,
editing
any
Judge Mc- That
we do not
Sandlin’s attack was
at
condone
directed
merely find
transcripts.
of official
We
Donald.
form
867
allegations
subjective
Times,
that Sandlin’s
were broader than
one of
York
but is
New
argued
him.
objective.
837;
Westfall, 808 S.W.2d at
In re
Disciplinary
Graham,
Against
Action
support
argument
of his
that his
313,
(Minn.),
denied,
N.W.2d
cert.
good faith,
statements were made in
67, 112
(1990).
U.S.
111 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 41
took,
points
passed,
out that he
and
two
agree.
We
language
While the
of WSRPC
polygraph
points
tests. He also
out that his
8.2(a) is consistent with the constitutional
memory
hearing agreed
of the TRO
with that
placed
limitations
on defamation actions
wife,
client,
of his
and his former law
Times,
New York
“because of the interest in
clerk,
present
all of whom were
at the hear
protecting
public,
the administration of
ing.
findings
Sandlin contends the
of the
justice,
profession,
purely subjec
employees
two television
who reviewed the
tive
inappropriate.” Westfall,
standard is
id.
tape recording
hearing only
“bol
Thus,
at 837.
we determine what the reason
stered” his belief that he remembered his
attorney,
able
light
considered in
of all his
colloquy
correctly.
McDonald
professional functions, would do in the same
that,
He contends
even if his statements
or similar circumstances.
false,
were
punished
he cannot be
absent
proof
they
were made with actual knowl
standard,
Using this
we find the dis
edge
falsity.
that,
of their
Sandlin concedes
trict court
finding
did not err in
.
Times,
disregard
under New York
reckless
1.2(f)(2)
8.2(a).
violated L.R.
and WSRPC
for the truth of a statement will suffice.' He
The district court found as a
matter
factual
however,
that,
argues,
under
that, at the time he made his statements to
law, only knowledge
falsity
of actual
meets
agents
Detlor and Moulton and AUSA
In support,
the standard.
Sandlin cites Kai
Beatty
intentionally
McDonald
ser,
(1988)
(en
111 Wash.2d