Pardon My French

The ABA Journal has the story of a contempt proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio that led to the admonishment of an attorney.

The behavior had to do with remarks by defense counsel to a prosecutor in a criminal matter that were not overheard by the judge or court reporter

When asked for his recollection of the events, Assistant United States Attorney Michael Sullivan indicated that Attorney Weintraub’s first comment was to ask whether Sullivan was calling him a liar. AUSA Sullivan then heard him say “‘Unfucking believable.’ ‘Fuck you.’ And I recall specifically, ‘Fucking piece of shit.’” Id. at 7. When asked whether he made those comments, Attorney Weintraub first noted: “Now that he mentioned the Judge Polster comment, I did call him a liar. I do remember that.” Id. Attorney Weintraub then denied making any other remarks to AUSA Sullivan.

The court conducted an evidentiary hearing with several witnesses and found

Initially, the Court would note that the overwhelming evidence proves that Attorney Weintraub misbehaved in the presence of the court. Every witness was consistent in stating that Attorney Weintraub directed profane statements to AUSA Sullivan while AUSA Sullivan was addressing the Court and immediately thereafter in the courthouse elevator. Moreover, there can be no question based on the record that Attorney Weintraub intentionally directed those comments to AUSA Sullivan. As such, the only element remaining for the Court’s consideration is whether those actions obstructed the administration of justice…

Given the totality of the circumstances herein, the Court believes that it must equitably tailor a punishment that is appropriate to the conduct herein. As detailed above, the Court believes that there is sufficient evidence to make a finding of criminal contempt. However, the Court also acknowledges that any obstruction of the proceedings resulting from Attorney Weintraub’s conduct was minimal. The undersigned did not hear the statements, nor were they loud enough to have been heard by the court reporter and added to the record. Additionally, AUSA Sullivan indicated that while he heard the statements, he was still able to make his full presentation without issue. As a result, the Court does not believe the conduct warrants creating a permanent criminal record for Attorney Weintraub.

Drum roll please 

After careful consideration, the Court believes that a public admonishment along with reporting to the appropriate disciplinary authority is the appropriate sanction herein. Accordingly, Attorney Craig Weintraub is hereby formally and publicly admonished for his conduct during and immediately following the sentencing hearing held on November 3, 2015. A copy of this opinion shall be forwarded to Ohio’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel to allow that office to determine whether any further sanction should flow from the conduct and the open issue of whether Attorney Weintraub was candid to the Court in his recollection of the events of November 3, 2015.

What a f***ing waste of time and resources. (Mike Frisch)