“We Do Not Know” And Do Not Suspend

The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured an attorney who threatened criminal charges to obtain advantage in a domestic proceeding.

The Disciplinary Review Board found that

…the quoted portions of respondent’s August 4, 2012 letter and August 14, 2012 email contain unequivocal threats of presenting criminal charges against Taylor to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter, that is, the “Proposed Settlement,” violations of RPC 3.4(g). The only issue left for determination is the suitable degree of discipline for respondent’s conduct.

The attorney’s position was no position at all

Because this is a default, we are without the benefit of respondent’s frame of mind, when he wrote the letter and the email. Thus, there is no context to the letter and email and no indication of contrition or remorse on respondent’s part. It is possible, though, that what appears to have been a contentious post-judgment matrimonial matter colored respondent’s judgment. We do not know.

While I agree that an unethically threatening letter to a pro se litigant may not require a a suspension, ignoring the disciplinary process might tip the balance. (Mike Frisch)