Don Bailey is a war veteran, a former U.S. congressman and state auditor general. He’s also a civil rights lawyer who says he has a target on his back.

Bailey is in danger of being disbarred over federal documents he filed as part of a lawsuit. He accused seven federal judges of being in a judicial “clique” that’s out to get him.

After he filed the suit, the state Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, which enforces the rules attorneys have to follow, launched an investigation into Bailey’s conduct.

On Thursday, Bailey went before a three-person panel of attorneys in a Pennsylvania Justice Center hearing room, fighting for his professional existence.

In opening statements of a two-day disciplinary board hearing, he shifted between calm and appreciative, belligerent and condescending as he tried to convince the panel that he should keep his license to practice law.

“I respect you,” he told the board calmly. But then his voice raised. “This is a fraud. If a lawyer dares to complain, his or her profession and livelihood are destroyed.”

The state disciplinary board lead counsel Robert P. Fulton said Bailey, who lives in Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County, has violated the code of professional conduct for making the claims without facts behind them. His lawsuit was dismissed twice and then appealed, and Fulton called them frivolous.

Two of the federal judges testified at the hearing that they don’t discriminate against Bailey, a claim he first raised when appealing a sanction imposed by U.S. Middle District Judge Christopher C. Connor.

In his matter-of-fact testimony, Connor was asked if he had ever talked about Bailey with other judges.

“I’ve probably discussed you with every one of my colleagues at some time,” Connor said.

Those colleagues are all named in the appeal: Senior Judges Sylvia Rambo, the late Malcolm Muir and the late James F. McClure Jr., along with Circuit Court Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Connor and District Court Judges John E. Jones and Yvette Kane.

Bailey alleges that the seven judges conspired to dismiss his cases to settle scores from his career in politics.

When the hearing concludes — probably today — the panel will make a recommendation to the state Supreme Court, and they will decide what happens to Bailey.

“I am suffering retaliation today because I had the courage ... to do what is right,” he said during his opening statements. “I don’t care what you do to me, but you will not shut me up and you will not intimidate me.”

And then Bailey said something that resembled backpedaling. He told the panel he wasn’t insinuating that they were trying to intimidate or silence him.

But seconds later, he was yelling again, talking over the panel’s presiding attorney, who was trying to explain that Bailey had already gone 10 minutes over the allotted time for statements.

“You need to get your house in order,” Bailey continued. “You think destroying my profession or taking my license is going to change anything? These people behind me have the right to go to court and have their cases heard and not be dismissed because they are complaining about a cop.”

Seated behind him were about 40 supporters, many his clients. Five were expected to testify on his behalf.

“An investigation in the judicial system is necessary,” he said. “Corruption in Pennsylvania has become a pervasive way of life.”

Bailey says the judges dismiss most of his suits without ever considering facts. When he refiled one suit, he was ordered to pay almost $20,000 in legal fees and $30,000 in fines.

In court, Bailey said a close colleague had given him advice for the hearing, telling him to find some humility and apologize to the board. He could never do that, he said.

“The charges basically are that I wrote in a pleading about judges misbehaving,” Bailey said. “I confess to that. I still believe every word that I said.”