Overview

Parish was publicly reproved after his campaign mailed a flyer falsely asserting that his opponent, Judge Daniel Maguire, had been involved in corporate fraud and bribery in Russia. The Review Department held the statement was made with reckless disregard for the truth, violating Rule 1-700 (attorney judicial-candidate conduct, incorporating Canon 5). The court adopted an objective “reasonable attorney” standard: before publishing, a reasonable attorney would have verified the accusation.

Background

• Parish relied on an advisor’s email referencing an article he never read; he conducted no independent verification.
• Other mailer content tying Maguire to the Protocol Foundation expenses and the Esteban Núñez commutation was found true or reasonably based, and thus not disciplinable.
• Campaign signage (“Law Enforcement’s Choice — Clint Parish Judge”) and a website captioning error were not violations (the latter was de minimis and promptly corrected).

Violation & Standard

• Rule 1-700 / Canon 5: Judicial candidate attorneys may not make false factual statements knowingly or with reckless disregard for truth.
• Standard applied: Objective — would a reasonable attorney have checked the truth before publication?
• First Amendment: The court limited discipline to false factual statements; regulation of mere implications or opinions would be unconstitutional.

Aggravation & Mitigation

Disposition

• Public Reproval (effective 15 days after service of opinion).
• Condition: Complete the State Bar’s Ethics School within one year and pass the final test.
• Costs: Assessed under Bus. & Prof. Code §6086.10.

Key Takeaways

• Rule 1-700 targets false factual statements; true-but-misleading rhetoric alone is not disciplinable.
• Recklessness is judged by the reasonable attorney standard.
• Public reproval can be appropriate where the falsehood is isolated, promptly corrected, and strong mitigation exists.