Schindler’s Listing

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has imposed an 18-month suspension with fitness in a matter involving an attorney admitted in 1969.

In 1969, attorneys were admitted by the federal district court. The court of appeals assumed disciplinary authority over such attorneys when it was created in 1972.

The misconduct involved two rather unusual matters where the attorney filed lawsuits on his own behalf. One involved a painting; the other a swimming pool.

First, the painting

Respondent acquired a landscape painting that he believed was the work of 19th century Austrian artist Emil Jakob Schindler (“the painting” or “the Schindler painting”). In February 1993, he contacted Christie’s London office in response to an advertisement he had received from the firm about an auction of German and Austrian art it planned for May of that year. In his letter to Christie’s, Respondent proposed to consign the painting to Christie‟s for the auction. He testified before the Hearing Committee that, through telephone conversations, he and Wendy Goldsmith of Christie’s reached an oral consignment agreement under which Christie’s was required to offer the painting for sale as an “unqualifiedly authentic Schindler painting” and was specifically prohibited from seeking an expert opinion as to the painting‟s authenticity.

Christie’s sought an expert opinion on the authenticity of the painting and refused to sell it when their expert demurred.

The attorney sued Christie’s and engaging in a pattern of frivolous filings.

As to the pool

During June and July of 2004, the volunteer members of the governing board of Palisades, a private non-profit corporation that operates a recreational pool and tennis facility of which Respondent was a member, received complaints about Respondent‟s behavior at the facility, which is located in Montgomery County, Maryland. The numerous complaints alleged that Respondent interfered with children‟s dive team practices and competitions, pushed young children aside in the pool and used profanity around them, and made inappropriate and sexually suggestive comments to pool patrons and staff members, some of whom were teenagers.

The attorney sued the governing board in federal court for its response to the situation and engaged in similarly abusive litigation. 

The court noted

The record supports the Hearing Committee‟s finding that Respondent sued because he wanted to make miserable the lives of Palisades Board members who had had the “temerity to tell him that his behavior was unacceptable,” not because he had claims that he legitimately believed entitled him to relief under the law. In addition, there was no basis in fact or law for Respondent‟s claim that the court had diversity jurisdiction.

And as to sanction

…through his conduct in the Christie’s and Palisades litigation, Respondent violated several provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Far from exhibiting remorse for his egregious and repeated misconduct, Respondent has refused to acknowledge that he has engaged in any wrongdoing. While Respondent has no prior disciplinary history, this factor does not weigh heavily in his favor in light of his representations that he has not been engaged in the practice of law for nearly three decades, with the exceptions of his involvement in Christie’s and Palisades.

Update: The attorney died last month. We will see what action the court takes in response to a suggestion of death.  (Mike Frisch)