Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Karst

Citations: 601 So. 2d 658; 1992 La. LEXIS 2300; 1992 WL 151792Docket: No. 88-OB-0209

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; July 1, 1992; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In May 1981, the Louisiana State Bar Association's Committee on Professional Responsibility initiated disciplinary action against attorney C. Edward Karst for making false accusations against retired Judge Guy E. Humphries, Jr., and fellow attorney Minos Simon, alleging serious misconduct such as blackmail and corruption related to a specific litigation case. The Committee recommended a one-year suspension, contingent upon Karst proving he had addressed his mental and emotional instability. The Court confirmed that Karst knowingly made these unfounded accusations, which violated professional conduct rules, and noted that his behavior was prejudicial to justice and reflected poorly on his suitability to practice law. Despite previous attempts for reinstatement in 1984 and 1986 being denied, a third application in 1988 provided no new evidence of rehabilitation. Consequently, the Court appointed Commissioner Phillip A. Wittman to conduct a thorough hearing, during which expert psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Gene Usdin was mandated. Following the hearing and review of the psychiatric findings, Commissioner Wittman recommended against Karst's reinstatement due to ongoing mental health issues.

Commissioner Wittman indicated that reinstatement could be possible for the respondent if he pursued appropriate psychiatric treatment. Efforts to reassess Mr. Karst’s condition included a request for a medical release authorization, which was not returned, leading to a second request sent by certified mail, also left unacknowledged. On August 6, 1991, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a motion to close the record and deny reinstatement, citing the respondent's ongoing lack of cooperation in providing medical records. The respondent subsequently filed a response that failed to demonstrate rehabilitation and instead attempted to contest the merits of his prior suspension, deemed irrelevant to the reinstatement process.

On May 20, 1992, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel submitted a motion to supplement the record, which included a transcript from a radio interview in October 1991, where Mr. Karst made threatening statements regarding the Louisiana Supreme Court, suggesting he would "execute" its members. He attempted to justify his use of the term "execute" as a legal concept rather than a threat. Additionally, correspondence from Mr. Karst to a former U.S. Attorney contained claims of impropriety against the Supreme Court, asserting the need for intervention due to his perceived grievances. Overall, the record reflects ongoing concerns about Mr. Karst's mental state and continued threats, further complicating his reinstatement efforts.

C. Edward Karst's correspondence outlines his justification for actions he perceives as necessary against the Louisiana Supreme Court, drawing parallels to historical and moral precedents. In communications from September to December 1989, he references a military officer's moral dilemma related to executing Hitler, suggesting that similar moral ambiguity applies to his situation. He argues that the Church and the Bishop have not deemed it morally wrong to consider executing the Supreme Court, implying that their inaction has tacitly sanctioned his thoughts. Karst expresses irony regarding the possibility of avoiding his intended actions if the District Attorney would acknowledge his claims. He emphasizes that his moral and legal duty compels him to act, framing his potential execution of the Supreme Court as a fulfillment of a personal prophecy related to government officials' failures. He further describes his life experiences, including education and military service, as guiding him to this conclusion. Karst insists that any perceived threats he has made should not be taken at face value and asserts that the Supreme Court has effectively appointed him as its executioner. He concludes by warning that his actions may eventually lead to a Grand Jury investigation, highlighting the seriousness of his intentions and the historical context of his grievances.

Mr. Karst's actions have negatively impacted the administration of justice in Louisiana and raise concerns about his fitness to practice law. His belief that killing judicial officers is morally justifiable indicates a severe lack of mental, moral, and emotional stability necessary for an attorney. His failure to cooperate with Commissioner Wittman, provide evidence of rehabilitation, and his threats against judiciary members further support the denial of his application for reinstatement. The Committee on Professional Responsibility, a precursor to the Disciplinary Board, determined that Mr. Karst's application must be denied. Despite his claims of cooperation, he acknowledged Commissioner Wittman's request for updated medical records but did not provide them, demonstrating a lack of compliance and engagement in the process. Over ten months have passed since he became aware of this request, yet he has failed to act on it.