You're making "a big issue out of nothing."
That contention made by a long-time California attorney in response to a disciplinary outcome recently handed down by the state bar wasn't an utterance much appreciated by officials from the state's governing legal body.
In fact, bar officials called Albert Miklos Kun's comment "a source of enormous concern."
And then they disbarred him.
If bar authorities were looking for signs of respect from Kun, they were certainly disappointed by the attorney's utter lack of remorse or acknowledgment that the recent decision to take his license was proper or even grounded in legitimacy.
In fact, Kun argued in his defense that the outcome was more than simply wrong; rather, he claimed that the bar didn't have legal authority to discipline him in the first place.
The charges against Kun -- a four decades-plus legal practitioner in California - were sweepingly broad. They included multiple counts of misrepresentation and attempts to mislead a judge, as well as failure to comply with a court order and to return unearned fees to a client,
Kun termed that alleged catalogue of wrongdoing as "de minimis" (so minor as to not warrant an official response). He stated that his hearing was a "dime-a-dozen routine matter" that should never have been commenced.
And he also cited a U.S. Supreme Court case that he said endorsed a doctrine concerning de minimis violations that effectively provided him with a constitutional defense against punishment meted out by the California bar.
The bar's response to that was swift and unequivocal, with its written response stating that the Supreme Court did not remotely touch upon any concept that would provide Kun with such a defense. The bar's decision called Kun's belief and defense strategy "distressing."
The California Supreme Court could review Kun's matter. Alternatively, it might yet be a matter for appeal by the bar's review department.