Attorney Jill Clark, (not pictured above) renowned in the Hennepin County legal community for filing truly loony lawsuits, has started a blog in the wake of a lawyer disciplinary lawsuit filed against her. "Jill Clark Speaks Out Dot Nutty Clark Bar Dot Com" or something like that.
I learned of Jill's blog from a reader who took the time to post a comment in a blog discussion about Jill's latest legal lunacy.
Many of Clark's lawsuits concern North Minneapolis issues, such as her utter defeat in the "true JACC" lawsuit in the Jordan Neighborhood, or suing Fifth Ward Council Member Don Samuels on behalf of "Mayor of Crazy Town" Al Flowers, another predictable defeat, or taking up the cause of slimy Level Three Sex Offender Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer. Clark seems to pride herself on jousting with the "powers that be."
Uh huh. Like a neighborhood board run by unpaid volunteers qualifies as "the powers that be."
The details of the lawyer discipline suit against Jill Clark are fuzzy. (See image) Furthermore, that lack of clarity isn't helped much by her blog which promises much, adopts a shrill conspiratorial tone about the "powers that be" who want to punish her for being a "lone soldier" in the cause of justice, a "strong oak" standing in a harsh wind, (I'm not making this crap up!) but Clark's blog actually delivers little in the way of facts.
...the very first blog posting of February 26, 2012 promises that Jill Clark will file an answer to the charges filed by the Director of the Lawyers Office For Professional Responsibility. She says the blog "will include copies of important documents and evidence." Clark even names March 2 as the date her answer will be filed.
Well, here it is the very Ides of March and yet there are no documents on the blog, just broad hints but little in the way of specifics about why Clark is facing discipline.
Meanwhile, trying to get a step ahead of those who would hold her to account for herself, in one blog posting after another Clark desperately tries to wrap herself in the red-white-and-blue mantle of "judicial reformer."
Uh huh. Yeah, like her client "Spanky Pete" is an "advocate for children." (Imitating Pete's voice: "These poor little North Minneapolis children are getting PTSD and somebody should be appointed to study it!" Slobber, slobber, rubby rub rub)
I hope to Almighty God the Lawyers Board takes decisive action and saves the public from this notorious legal loon whose numerous craptastic lawsuits have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years and--so it is reported--have actually impacted the availability for "Directors and Operators" insurance for neighborhood boards in the wake of the JACC fiasco.
Few lawyers--even criminal defense lawyers--can be considered a menace to decent society. But Clark is the exception. When Clark files a case, judges recuse themselves like toppling bowling pins.
But, my word, if Clark is disciplined, what will become of her clients? Does Clark have malpractice insurance? Is getting yourself suspended or disbarred in the middle of your client's lawsuit grounds for legal malpractice? What if no other lawyer will touch the case with a ten foot nutty Clark bar?
Of course, even if Clark lost her license, that wouldn't be the end of Clark. I would expect her to start filing "pro se" lawsuits on her own behalf, like her unsavory client Peter "Spanky Pete" Rickmyer.
We wait. We watch. We salivate for information about Clark's fate. But very little of that information comes from where one might expect: Clark's blog which promises to "speak out" on the matter. Her blog is more of a public "freak out," lots of noise and emotion but it's hard to tell why she's havign a public fit. Delerium tremens?
COUNTER ARGUMENT: In the spirit of fairness, I will now say something postive about Clark's blog:
It isn't full of cringe-worthy spelling errors and typos like, for example, Don Allen of IBNN or the "brothers as dads" blog purportedly authored by the Yzaguirre brothers, two no accounts convicted of drug running.
The only mistake Clark consistently makes is using single quote marks where double quote marks belong.