Ethics Concerns Surround Raven Chandler: Sanctions Possible
By: Legal Affairs Staff on November 12, 2024
Memphis, TN – Attorney Raven Chandler, with the Shelby County Health Department’s legal team, finds herself under scrutiny as a pro se litigant has filed for sanctions against her, alleging misconduct and ethical violations. The case, Kiner v. Shelby County Health Department et al., has gained attention as plaintiff Rev. Gerald Kiner claims Chandler’s actions reflect a “conspicuous disregard for the laws of the United States” and the professional ethics expected in federal court.
Kiner, a local pastor and community leader, represents himself in a $25M lawsuit against the Health Department and Veronica Brown, a county official. In his recent filing, he describes Chandler’s behavior as “frantic and unseasoned,” accusing her of attempting to dismiss his case prematurely through what he characterizes as “a series of baseless motions aimed at obfuscating justice.” Kiner asserts that Chandler’s attempts to dismiss his claims, particularly those concerning whistleblower retaliation and constitutional violations, lack substance and violate multiple rules of professional conduct.
The request for sanctions specifically cites violations of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 3.1, which prohibits filing frivolous motions, and Rule 3.3, which requires attorneys to act with candor toward the court. Kiner claims that Chandler’s submissions to the court misrepresent the legal and factual basis of the case, which he argues “suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead the tribunal.” Kiner has further pointed out that Chandler failed to address key legal issues and evidence, including critical aspects of whistleblower protections and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legal experts following the case note that Kiner’s request for sanctions is unusual for a pro se plaintiff, especially one representing himself against a government agency. “For a pro se litigant to call for sanctions against opposing counsel is notable,” said one, legal ethics professor we interviewed. “If his allegations hold, this could be a career-defining moment for Chandler and a significant wake-up call regarding professional standards in public service law.”
Kiner’s filing comes on the heels of what he describes as “repeated, frantic attempts” by Chandler to have the case dismissed. He argues that these motions were not only “hasty” but “revealed an awareness of potential defeat at trial,” which he believes motivated Chandler to employ tactics aimed at sidestepping due process.
Kiner’s latest motion also criticizes Chandler’s apparent disregard for key legal precedents, specifically pointing to her failure to adhere to standards set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. This landmark Supreme Court case set requirements for claims to rise above mere speculation. Kiner accuses Chandler of ignoring these standards in her filings, calling it a “flagrant breach” that further undermines the case’s integrity.
While Kiner awaits the court’s decision on sanctions, he hopes his motion will serve as a reminder that ethical standards apply to all attorneys, regardless of their level of experience or position. If the court grants Kiner’s motion for sanctions, it could have a significant impact on Chandler’s legal career and her future in public service. It would also serve as a strong message that ethical lapses, especially in high-stakes government cases, are taken seriously in federal court.
For now, the spotlight remains the judge, as the legal community and public await the court’s decision on whether Chandler’s conduct crosses the line between zealous advocacy and professional misconduct.
About Post Author
