Unconquered Suns and Orders to Show Cause

I like to think I’m up on current events. Prior to today, I was aware that members of the Proud Boys, who were convicted of various offenses stemming from the January 6, 2021 insurrection but later pardoned or had their sentences commuted by the current president, had sued the United States for $100 million. The case is venued in the Middle District of Florida.

But prior to today, I was unaware that (a) there was a lawyer named Augustus Sol Invictus involved in that case, and (b) there was a lawyer named Augustus Sol Invictus* at all.

(I don’t normally make fun of people’s names because lord knows I dealt with enough “Spacey Stacie” and mangling of my last when I was growing up, but according to Wikipedia, he changed his name from Austin Gillespie in 2006. He did this on purpose. That’s fair game.)

Anyhow, Mr. Invictus (Mr. Sol Invictus? Is this a compound last name or is Sol a middle name?) has a bit of history with the criminal justice system (and also being an alt-right racist). Relevant here, he was found guilty in Virginia late last year of burning an object with the intent to intimidate (a felony) at the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, and in January he was sentenced to prison, stayed pending appeal.

Now, the Middle District of Florida, like many jurisdictions, requires attorneys convicted of certain crimes to promptly report the conviction. After that, a lawyer who has reported a felony is automatically suspended, unless they petition for relief. Mr. Invictus has apparently neglected to report this conviction, and the judge in the Proud Boys case is not pleased.

Today, the judge ordered him to show cause “why he has not violated Local Rule 2.04(b)(1) and why he is not currently suspended from the Middle District bar by operation of Local Rule 2.04(b)(2).”

I am writing about this today, in part because there are a bunch of words here that are all English (well, except for Augustus Sol Invictus) but if you told me four years ago I’d be putting them in this order I would have assumed you had lost touch with reality, but also in part because jurisdictions’ approaches to criminal convictions differ wildly.

 In Wisconsin, where I live and primarily practice, a lawyer needs to report any felony or misdemeanor conviction or finding of guilt within five days, per SCR 21.15. The mere fact of the conviction does not require any particular outcome, though the Office of Lawyer Regulation can seek summary suspension (ahead of formal disciplinary proceedings) under SCR 22.20 if the conviction is for a serious crime that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s character or fitness to practice law. But they don’t always do that, and some felony convictions don’t lead to discipline at all. For instance, in Wisconsin, homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle didn’t even get one lawyer a reprimand. (I also note that unaggravated first-offense drunk driving is a municipal ordinance violation here, not even a crime, so discipline will likely never flow from that.)

On the other hand, in New York, lawyers with felony convictions are automatically disbarred. No exceptions, no mercy, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

I do think that New York is unnecessarily heavy-handed. Discipline based on unflinching algorithm may seem fair and unbiased, but we do not live in a country where criminal justice is fair and unbiased.

The Middle District of Florida process, and the Wisconsin process for that matter, allow for some flexibility, and an opportunity for the lawyer to be heard.

*And because my very stupid superpower is free-association earworms—I get songs stuck in my head based on rhymes, rhythms, or marginally related phrases—this put the first single, with a very sweary name I will not print here, from Faith No More’s 2015 album Sol Invictus in my head. Anyway, you should listen. It’s catchy.