Strickland V. Sony - Alabama License Revoked

Alabama License Revoked

On November 18, 2005, Judge Moore rejected Thompson's request to withdraw, and instead revoked his Pro Hac Vice admission (a temporary license to practice in a given jurisdiction), in an 18-page decision. Thompson responded with a letter to Alabama's Judicial Inquiry Commission, questioning Judge Moore's ethics and accusing him of violating the first 3 Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics Thompson also claimed the judge had "absolutely no authority" in preventing him from withdrawing from the case, and so therefore the court's decision to kick him off the case was a "legal nullity". He accused the court of punishing him for "aggressively telling the truth" while it "looked the other way when Blank Rome elegantly told those lies."

Judge Moore has also referred this matter to the Alabama State Bar for "appropriate action" remarking among other things: "Mr. Thompson's actions before this Court suggest that he is unable to conduct himself in a manner befitting practice in this state."

On November 21, 2005, Thompson claimed that "We had heard going into this civil case, before it was even filed, that a particular Western Alabama lawyer had to be part of our litigation team or Judge Moore would not give us a fair hearing. This lawyer himself claims, openly, that 'Judge Moore will not allow you to survive summary judgment if I am not on the case.' For too long we have heard swirling around this Judge allegations of improper influence." (sic) Thompson alluded that the "fixer" was local lawyer Clatus Junkin, although Junkin denied he had any influence over any judges, or that he had made such a comment, as he was "not that dumb or foolish enough to imply that could ." He also declined Thompson's request to join the plaintiffs' team, citing disagreements over Thompson's demands of complete control of any contact with the news media. Judge Moore noted that even though he had banned comments on the case outside the courtroom, Thompson had issued 7 different communications between the start of the case and the day he revoked Thompson's Pro Hac Vice. After being thrown off the case, Thompson requested that Judge Moore recuse himself from the case. Moore ignored him, stating "I can’t consider it because he’s no longer practicing in the state of Alabama. If some other lawyer in the case asks me to recuse myself, I’ll consider it in court."

On December 13, 2005, Thompson announced that he will be "assisting plaintiffs’ counsel during the discovery process and in the courtroom at trial" when the civil trial begins in 2006 (the judge ruled on both Thompson's dismissal from the case, and dismissal of the case itself, during pretrial hearings). He also claimed he "will likely be a witness in the case." Although he gave no details as to what he would be a witness to, except that he claimed he had "warned, in writing," Take-Two and Rockstar Games "that murders such as those in Alabama would occur by teens who had rehearsed the murders on their virtual reality killing simulators." It should be noted though, that Judge Moore forbade Thompson from " with the court or the judge" or he "would be held in contempt of court." While that order was appealed, it has not yet been ruled on.

On February 16, 2006, Thompson sent a letter to the Alabama Bar, accusing Judge Moore of breaking the bar rules by publicly disclosing that he had filed a complaint about Thompson with the Alabama Bar. He accused Judge Moore of denying Devin Moore a fair trial, and claimed the FBI was investigating the Florida Bar's "disciplinary process". Thompson gave the Alabama Bar until "five o’clock p.m., Eastern time, February 17, 2006" to drop the complaint, or else he would file a "federal lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida on Monday, February 20, 2006."

The Alabama State Bar rules state that a court official who revokes Pro Hac Vice due to conduct must refer the matter to the Bar for review, and the Bar decides if an investigation is needed. No complaint is required to open an investigation.

Thompson's deadline of February 17 passed, without action from either party.

On February 22, 2006, Thompson followed up with another letter, announcing that he had filed a lawsuit against the Alabama Bar, for investigating a complaint " which in fact was not even filed" in "violation of its own Bar Rules."

The Alabama Bar has not yet been served notice with any complaint from Thompson, nor has any Florida court acknowledged a civil suit being filed.

Thompson announced that the Strickland v. Sony plaintiffs were still his clients, and vowed to represent them in-court when the trial resumes.

On October 9, 2007, Thompson filed a lawsuit against the Alabama Bar with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case has been assigned to the same judge who has had previously presided over attempts by Thompson to sue the Florida Bar, which were voluntarily withdrawn. Thompson claimed that his rights of "speech, petition, and religion" were violated when his Pro Hac Vice status was revoked.