Lawyer Mental Competency

A Legal Opinion by Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Phd., Esq., Coif

It is possible that some unethical lawyers might try to disqualify another attorney on the other side of the case by asserting that the opposing lawyer is judicial incompetent to practice law due to mental incompetency for such reasons as believeing in Natural Law, or God, or Christmas, etc. Such chicanery cannot be allowed. Once the lawyer has made an appearance in the case, he only required to not violate the law and not violate the legal ethics rules. The issue of the lawyer's alleged mental incompetency is judged under fire in the legal representation or courtroom itself. This also avoids trumped up false charges of mental incompetency by an apposing attorney in every case. The real test for a lawyer is whether or not he can practice law with committing malpractice on a regular basis, and, this is the only valid test. And, if a moot type test is every used to judge competency to practice law, the legal problem or vignette which is used must be one which the average lawyer could pass, not some super complicated, tricky, problem, and all those involved must know it is a problem exercise, and they must be well paid. The lawyer being tested has the right to require any lawyers insisting on the moot test to take the same or a similar moot court test. Once a lawyer has made an appearance in a legal matter for a client, the lawyer is conclusively presumed to be judicially competent to practice law. This is my Legal Opinion as a Member of the United States Supreme Court Bar and Order of the Coif. Signed, Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Phd., Esq., Coif