Share

Former Mobile circuit court judge Herman Thomas unsuccessfully testified in defense of his right to practice law today as the Alabama State Bar Association turned down his appeal, upholding their suspension of his law license.

Thomas’s lawyer, “Cowboy Bob” Clark said he and his client would move forward in regards to the Bar’s denial.

Thomas, who testified on his own behalf instead of exercising his option to plead the fifth, was presented with semen samples found in his “little room” that matched the DNA of a person named in the 57 count indictment filed against him, according to general counsel for the Alabama State Bar Association.

State Bar denies appeal, DNA evidence presented

Thomas and Clark on March 27.

He was also presented with Judicial Inquiry Commission complaints he hadn’t seen since just before he resigned from the bench in 2007, though the specifics of those complaints were not immediately available. These complaints were put together by Mobile County District Attorney John Tyson Jr. and sealed off by the JIC after Thomas resigned.

Tony McClain of the Alabama State Bar said this evidence was presented in order to get it on the record for today’s panel.

“We were provided with information from the district attorney’s investigators on some semen samples taken from the room adjacent to Thomas’s courtroom and apparently one of those proved to be from a criminal defendant. His name had come up in some other investigations that were being done down there with regard to the allegations contained in the indictment (filed against Thomas),” McClain said. “One of them was named in the indictment and the other was not. All we did was offer that information, we didn’t get into the details of those particular test results.”

“There was no DNA that belonged to Herman Thomas. It’s not an issue. Nobody had any of his (Thomas’s) DNA,” Clark said. “If it was my client’s DNA, I might consider that a problem, but hell, how much DNA is there in that courthouse over there?”

The State Bar also filed three of the complaints that led to Thomas’s resignation from the bench, but until today had not been made a matter of record.

“We also provided copies of those three complaints that Mr. Tyson’s office filed with the Judicial Inquiries Commission and those were exhibited at today’s hearing also,” McClain said. “Some of them were quite lengthy as you could imagine with a 57 count indictment. I don’t have immediate recall from those.”

Tyson commented on the complaints filed today – complaints he originally compiled in 2007 – saying they “are the ones that supplied the motive for all of the others.” The others, Tyson said, are more technical in nature. He also said the complaints will show that his office has been involved in the Thomas case from the beginning.

“Rather than respond to them, he (Thomas) quit,” Tyson said. That information should indicate a long time involvement of this office into the judge’s issues.

“When the Attorney General (Troy King) abandoned his duties to the JIC, the JIC rushed to the governor who gave them $100,000 to hire a new lawyer to handle that work. They ran out of money – and so they turned to us to supply all of the support for the continuing work of the Judicial Inquiries Commission principally in the form of our investigators and this office did all that work way back when. Until today, no one has known that.”

With the mounting evidence presented at Thomas’s appeal today, McClain felt comfortable that the State Bar was prepared, regardless of whether Thomas testified or not.

“It was time for him to tell his side of the story, and that’s what he did,” Clark said of their decision to have Thomas testify.

“We were prepared either way, if he took the fifth, or he gave testimony on the issues we wanted to ask about. So, you know, that was their call from a criminal defense standpoint. I’m sure he and Mr. Clark discussed that -and decided that was the best thing to do today,” McClain said.

McClain said today’s events unfolded as they should have from his point of view.

“We had suspended him on a law that requires us to show probable cause – that he is a risk or danger to the public, or to his clients. And today was the responsibility of them (Clark and Thomas) to show why that restraining order or suspension should be lifted. So, since we had sought the suspension we were obviously pleased with the fact that it was sustained or upheld by the disciplinary commission,” McClain said.