Geoffrey Fieger is fighting for his law license in classic Fieger fashion:  he is suing everyone from prosecutors to judges.  In the meantime, judges are expressing surprising levels of public contempt for Fieger — and each other.Fieger has never suffered fools — or anyone — gladly.  When the president of the Michigan bar criticized him, he called him an “ass-licking brownnose.”After Fieger was confronted with a serious charge of illegal campaign contributions, he sued Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox for the investigation.  He is also suing Justice Stephen Markman, and three other members of the state’s high court to try to prevent them from ruling on a disciplinary action against him. This case was brought after Fieger used his radio show, Fieger Time, to call them “three jackass judges” and compared them to Nazis for striking down a $15 million medical-malpractice verdict he’d won.Now the judges are acting . . . well . . . Fieger-like:

When it comes to Fieger, the justices can also give as good as they get. In his 2002 re-election campaign, for instance, Chief Justice Clifford W. Taylor hammered trial lawyers, noting that “Geoffrey Fieger apparently has $90 million of lawsuit awards pending in the state court of appeals.” Another justice, Robert P. Young Jr., said in a speech at the Michigan Republican Party convention in 2000 that “Geoffrey Fieger and his trial-lawyer cohorts hate this court. There’s honor in that.” He’s one of the four Fieger has asked be recused from his discipline case.The very subject of Fieger even precipitated a nasty public spat among the justices. When Republican Justice Elizabeth A. Weaver agreed that her colleagues had shown “bias and prejudice” against Fieger, Chief Justice Taylor suggested in a draft opinion that Weaver go on a hunger strike, saying it had the “potential for everyone to be a winner.”

It is an increasingly bizarre public fight where the judges and justices have the most to lose. There is certainly no reason for judges to refer publicly to an individual who is before them in a disciplinary matter. There is an obligation to show a modicum of restraint. In this race to the bottom with Fieger, the courts have done exactly what he wants: destroyed their own credibility by trying to attack his own.For the full story, click here