Attorney Sanctioned For Web Site Post
The New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department imposed a five year suspension of an attorney found to have committed a laundry list of ethics violations in two matters. One involved misuse of funds entrusted to the attorney in connection with his representation of a not-for-profit tenants housing resource center; the other involved representations to and about a court in a domestic relations case where custody had been transferred from his client to her ex-husband:
The respondent represented Yevgenia Shockome, the mother in thechild custody matter, and in a divorce action in the Supreme Court. Therespondent wrote an article entitled, “A Call for Genia’s Law by BarryL. Goldstein, Stop Family Violence,” which was posted on a web site forthe Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference as part of a campaign to freethe respondent’s client, who had been imprisoned after being held incontempt by Judge Amodeo. One or more of the following excerpts fromthat article were dishonest, false, or misleading:
i. “Without an evidentiary hearing or any writtenexplanation, Judge Amodeo took the children from the mother who hasraised them and sent them to the abuser.”
ii.”Judge Amodeo got around this in his decision by constructing a bizarreconclusion that he, the Judge, had caused the mother’s PTSD.”
iii. “At one point it was discovered that the court had erased two of the transcripts[,] further delaying the appeal.”
iv.”The decision demanded that the mother stop therapy with her presenttherapist and instead use someone selected by the court.”
v.”I had to make a motion to withdraw from the case in front of JudgeAmodeo for medical reasons… The law requires that when a party losesan attorney for medical reasons, that she is entitled to at least a30-day stay to obtain another attorney. Instead, Amodeo continued tomake her come to court unrepresented, to face more abuse. After the 30days has passed (with no stay) he decided that she had enough time tofind an attorney.”
vi. “The police were called and they found that the supervisor had attacked the mother and child.”
viii. “Judge Amodeo called numerous conferences to attack and berate the mother for interfering with the phone calls and the father’s relationship with the children.”
The court rejected the following contentions:
In determining the appropriate measure of discipline to impose, therespondent asks the Court to consider, with respect to the escrowviolations, that they were “technical errors,” that “he was just anhonest attorney attempting to help others,” and that he has sincecorrected his ways. The respondent’s witnesses testified to hisreputation for cooperation, honesty, and sincerity.
While the respondent contends, with regard to the charges relating to the Shockome matter,that these disciplinary proceedings were brought by the GrievanceCommittee in retaliation and as a penalty for his criticism of JudgeAmodeo and the courts, we find no basis for such a contention. To thecontrary, we find the respondent’s utter failure to appreciate the factthat his conduct exceeded the bounds of propriety as a courtroomadvocate, his complete lack of remorse, and the pervasive nature of hisdeceptive conduct to be aggravating factors. Irrespective of therespondent’s sincerity in his beliefs, his overzealous behavior whichtook the form of disparaging remarks on the court, false accusationsabout Judge Amodeo disseminated in a public forum as part of a campaignto pressure the court into changing its rulings, and noncompliance withmultiple court orders, truly constituted conduct prejudicial to theadministration of justice.
The attorney had no record of prior discipline.(Mike Frisch)