Image 01 Image 03

Law Professor Might Report the Stanford Law Students Who Shouted Down Judge to California Bar

Law Professor Might Report the Stanford Law Students Who Shouted Down Judge to California Bar

“I am writing to advise you that I plan to file formal complaints with bar admission authorities opposing the admission of students identified as violating the free speech rights of Judge Duncan and their own fellow students”

A law professor from George Washington University has indicated that he may report the Stanford Law students who shouted down Judge Kyle Duncan to the California Bar Association.

This should be done. This type of thing should have been done years ago.

David Glasser reports at the College Fix:

Stanford law students who shouted down judge may be reported to California Bar

A law professor at George Washington University said he may file complaints intended to prevent Stanford Law School students who ambushed Judge Kyle Duncan from being admitted to the California Bar if campus administrators do not punish them for their disruptions.

Professor John Banzhaf of George Washington University Law School sent a letter to Professor Jenny Martinez, dean of Stanford Law School, warning of his plans.

“I am writing to advise you that I plan to file formal complaints with bar admission authorities opposing the admission of students identified as violating the free speech rights of Judge Duncan and their own fellow students,” read Banzhaf’s letter, a copy of which was obtained by The College Fix.

The professor, in his letter, added his pending complaint is the result of Stanford appearing not to take “any steps to discipline or otherwise sanction the student violators.”

Students at Stanford Law School shouted at and berated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan as he attempted to speak at the school at the behest of the Federalist Society earlier this month.

“As you have conceded, the students’ conduct ‘was inconsistent with our policies on free speech,’ and ‘not aligned with our institutional commitment to freedom of speech,’” Banzhaf noted in the letter.

Asked how he plans to identify the law student protesters, Banzhaf said in an email to The College Fix that the “names of some of the disruptors have been posted in various places on the Internet. There are also several video recordings of the event showing many of the disruptors.”

“Also, virtually everyone in the audience, and even many other law students who did not witness the incident in person, know who the disruptive students are,” he said. “It is not necessary to identify and file complaints concerning each and every participant. If only a few – who may or may not be among the ringleaders – are identified, there will still be an important impact.”

Senator Ted Cruz is taking similar steps in Texas.

The Hill reports:

Cruz urges Texas bar for careful consideration of Stanford graduates following campus protests

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) urged the Texas state bar to carefully consider the fitness of certain Stanford University law school graduates after a protest over a conservative judge’s speaking engagement on the campus.

Cruz in a letter to Texas officials said there is a “fundamental” question over whether the students who protested the appearance by Kyle Duncan, a circuit judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, are “fit to practice law” in Texas.

“The idea that these future lawyers would find it acceptable to harass and insult a sitting judge boggles the mind, and seriously calls into question whether these students have the proper respect for the role of a judge, or the temperament to practice law,” he said in a Thursday letter to Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht and Augustin Rivera, the chair of the Texas Board of Law Examiners.

“Indeed, these students’ tantrum raises a fair question as to whether they can be trusted to dispassionately defend clients that might have ideological opinions different from their own,” Cruz wrote.

If we want less of this behavior, there must be consequences for it.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’m surprised. I was expecting the GW professor to be Jonathan Turley.

The Bar Associations in multiple states should be notified, especially in the Northeast.

    fscarn in reply to bev. | March 23, 2023 at 10:50 am

    The Northeast? Those associations overseeing lawyer admission and post-admission conduct would probably fast-track these students.

    Federal and state officials are required to take the Article VI oath to the Constitution; state officials take a similar oath to their respective state constitutions. Lawyers, upon admission, take a similar oath, by virtue of statutes. Others do similarly, such as those joining the military and policemen.

    The percentage of those who mean, in the heart, the oath is small and getting smaller as the years pass.

    My proof? The Constitution is a document of limitation on government. Yet, gargantuan government, with Ds wanting even more and more, is all I see.

Louis K. Bonham | March 23, 2023 at 7:27 am

Assuming he can accurately identify the offending students with “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence, this is the way. Name. Shame. Do not forget. Do not forgive. Any firm hiring one of these clowns should make sure their malpractice insurance is solid, because they will be putting their clients’ interests into the hands of immature, maleducated activists.

But while some state bars might well declare them unfit, most won’t. Sen. Cruz’s statement that the State Bar of Texas should watch out for applications from them ignores the fact that the SBoTx (like the ABA) has long been captured by the SJW’s.

Heck, the California Bar will probably give them medals.

Hopefully this judge will follow through. If these sub-humans aren’t punished for horrible behaviour, how are they to learn that they’re wrong? So far not one has had so much as a hand slapped and it would take jail time to even get them to wake up.

Perhaps every bar association should begin the admission process with the presumption that each Stanford Law grad from the classes of 2023-2025 behaved badly. Each such student should be required to swear an affidavit stating whether they participated in the heckling and disruptive behavior, and what they did that was disruptive. If they swear such an affidavit, the inquiry would end–unless extrinsic evidence proved the affidavit was false.

There’s enough video of the disruption that a heckler would be quite reckless to falsely swear such an affidavit. A false affidavit would be far more reason to deny admission to the bar than possible participation in the shouting down of Judge Duncan’s speech.

A student who admitted that he or she participated in the disruption could still be admitted to the Bar–but may be required to demonstrate a new-found commitment to the rights of others before such admission.

    But could you trust them if they did?

      Owego in reply to Rusty Bill. | March 24, 2023 at 8:58 am

      That’s the question isn’t it? It’s a bit like finding an honest FBI agent, they may be, are, out there, but you have no way of knowing who they are. And while we’re on the subject of dishonor among inhabitants of our “elite” legal classes and organizations, how about identifying Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision leaker? The country is in desperate need of a good, deep house cleaning – soon.

    Dimsdale in reply to Disgusted. | March 23, 2023 at 12:55 pm

    Not a commitment, but a contract.

Cut these Marxist SOBs off at the knees.

I assume the California Bar, like so many institutions, has been captured by the left, so at best such a complaint will just go in the file and not actually prevent these students from becoming lawyers. But hopefully it gives them a bit of heartburn and anxiety over the next couple of years until they pass the exam and are admitted.

By all means do so, not that it will do much good. Lenin, though he is a century dead, remains with the western world as ‘Leninism’.

E Howard Hunt | March 23, 2023 at 9:10 am

I see a problem here. Why doesn’t the professor just file his complaint? He seeks to hide his ultimatum as a dressed-up, heads-up, giving his rationale. A normal reader would assume the complaint would not be sent if meaningful punishment were to be promised and such a promise were communicated to the professor. “Nice school you got here, Dean, be a shame if it caught fire.” The outrageous protest against Duncan does not justify extortion.

    Milhouse in reply to E Howard Hunt. | March 23, 2023 at 9:56 am

    What’s wrong with it? He’s doing the right thing, giving Stanford a chance to do its duty. If it does then there will be no need for him to take any action. But he’s letting it know that if it doesn’t then he will act. That’s exactly how it should be.

    Extortion would only apply if he were demanding a personal payoff in return for not filing charges.

“It is not necessary to identify and file complaints concerning each and every participant.”

Yeah, actually it is. In fact it is essential that what is done to one is done to all. That’s equal treatment under the law. Something it shouldn’t take law school to teach you.

    Milhouse in reply to Gosport. | March 23, 2023 at 9:53 am

    Sorry, that’s ridiculous. How could you possibly argue that unless every offender can be identified none should be charged? My friend Yankel Rosenbaum was murdered by a gang of at least 20 people; only one, Lemrick Nelson, was identified. After three trials, he served ten years. Are you seriously claiming he should have been let off just because the rest of the gang couldn’t be charged?!

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | March 23, 2023 at 11:45 am

      I don’t think he’s saying that. I think he’s saying that it would not be right to single out people (“ringleaders”) to report, if you chose not to report other people you could identify.

        DaveGinOly in reply to henrybowman. | March 24, 2023 at 1:49 am

        The threat isn’t to “single out” anyone, only to punish those who can be positively identified. Big difference. The threat is to punish all those students who are identified, and not to let any identified students off the hook.

    texansamurai in reply to Gosport. | March 23, 2023 at 11:16 am


    Yeah, actually it is. In fact it is essential that what is done to one is done to all.

    that’s absurd–follows the antifa practice of everyone dressed in black / masks / gloves which is for the express purpose of concealing their individual identity

    those that CAN be identified SHOULD be punished–“we couldn’t identify EVERYONE on the video but we CAN identify YOU and you were present and actively violating our “policies” regards free speech”

    if you plan on waiting for a perfect world before taking action, you’re going to lead a life of frustration indeed

Steven Brizel | March 23, 2023 at 9:38 am

At least one law professor still believes in freedom of speech

Wokeness is being on the cutting edge of virtue signalling. It happens on the right too, for instance this instance of cancel culture taken up.

Let the bar association figure it out for themselves if they want to.

Stanford Puts Diversity Dean Who Berated Federal Judge on Leave
Stanford Law School rules out discipline for student protesters, blames administrators

Tirien Steinbach, the diversity administrator at Stanford Law School who stoked a disruptive protest of Fifth Circuit appellate judge Kyle Duncan, is “currently on leave,” according to a memo on the protest reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. Jenny Martinez, the law school’s dean, said in a Wednesday morning memo to all law students that administrators “should not insert themselves into debate with their own criticism of the speaker’s views.” At future talks, the role of administrators will be to “ensure that university rules on disruption of events will be followed,” Martinez said.

Banzaf activist law prof who files suits like this for last 50 yrs. – at first class action case on smoking and health issues. And using his students
But for long time he has branched out to anything hi profile – Marilyn Mosby – for instance. Lotta times seems like he is attention guy but stuff he does always interesting.

To restore its credibility, what Stanford Law needs is an old-school Professor Charles Kingsfield, and a return to the Socratic .method, not a Dean of DEI.

From “The Paper Chase”:

Professor Kingsfield, “Mr. Hart, here’s a dime. Call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you becoming a lawyer.”

LukeHandCool | March 23, 2023 at 1:02 pm

Great news! The feel good story of the day!

Me and my wife went to college in the 70s but we have seen the changes in education since then. In the early 2000s my two sons finished HS and after the issues in HS and the issues we were seeing in college at the time we decided on different paths with them each. Each went to different Trade Schools when they graduated each year and they make over 6 figures, have houses, cars, and good bank accounts. The costs were very much less then half a year of college.

    HarvardPhD in reply to JG. | March 24, 2023 at 6:27 pm

    Of course, if they wanted to study something normally taught in college, they were just plain out of luck. Universities may be failing miserably at producing good citizens, but some things are hard to learn about anywhere else. Credentialism is also a disease in our society, but knowing this doesn’t help anyone who will need the credential in order to do what he wants to do in life. (There’s also this funny thing called . . . education?) Just because the progs try to tell everyone else how to live his or her life doesn’t mean that conservatives can’t be guilty of the same thing. If your kids didn’t want to go to college, fine! But you have made it sound as if it were you and your wife who made the decision for them.

Good for Professor John Banzhaf, but the woke CA Bar Assoc will more likely suspend HIM, than visit any negative consequences upon the awful Stanford snowflakes.

Haven’t many Bar Associations swung Left? That might make those mis-fits at Stanford stand out as some of the best candidates for admission.

I fully agree that those students who acted like spoiled little brats should be banned from practicing law as their behavior doesn’t suggest they support our Constitution or, simple common decency, They are a disgrace and should be kicked out of the school.

Yes. Even if it’s just gets these kids to “think” about consequences for their actions (an ability they sorely need to acquire) it accomplishes much.
Go for it!!

While my Property professor (G.P. Smith, one of only a very few profs whose names I can still recall) wasn’t as acidic as Kingsfield, he ran his class similarly. He allowed the students, twice during the semester, to let him know prior to class that they had not completed the assigned reading and would not select them to stand and deliver on those days. It did not go well for my classmates who were unprepared when called upon.

I can’t imagine that Stanford would allow this kind of stressful educational attitude at their institution, as it might damage the special snowflakes’ fragile psyches. Glad I never had to deal with clowns like these during either my educational or professional years.