“Habitual Lack Of Courtroom Decorum”

A criminal defense attorney has suspended for five years by the North Carolina Disciplinary Hearing Commission for a pattern of disrespectful behavior in court and other misconduct.

Among the cited incidents

On multiple occasions during the Nichols trial, Gray:

(a) Was late returning to the courtroom after recesses.

(b) Used his cell phone in the courtroom, including while Judge Joseph was addressing him.

(c) Failed to yield to Judge Joseph’s rulings and continued to argue with her after she had ruled…

By conspicuously using his cell phone while court was in session, laughing at witness testimony, failing to report to court on time, and pointing a gun at opposing counsel during argument in State v. Nichols, Defendant engaged in undignified or discourteous conduct that was degrading to the tribunal…

A firearm was entered into evidence in the Nichols case, and Gray used it as a “prop” during his closing argument. At one point during his argument, Gray aimed the weapon directly at the ADA and then at the jury. Gray then apologized for pointing the firearm at the jury, resumed pointing it at the ADA, and laughed.

During closing argument, Gray shouted rhetorical questions at the ADA while standing unnecessarily close to her in a physically intimidating manner.

During closing argument, Gray singled out one of the jurors, addressing him individually by name on three separate instances. Gray’s statements to the juror related to information Gray had learned during the jury selection process, including the fact that the juror had a firearm in his home. Gray stated to the juror “you have a loaded gun in your home,” following up with the comment, “And the reason you have a gun in the home is for protection of those babies.”

Due to Gray’s statements that singled him out by name, this juror felt intimidated and was unable to continue his service on the jury. As a result, the Nichols case ended in a mistrial.

Another closing argument

(a) Gray singled out a juror and addressed her individually. Judge Gessner immediately informed Gray this conduct was not acceptable.

(b) Gray addressed opposing counsel directly, making comments like “you should never have brought criminal charges against this man,” and “Mr. DA, you ~ you can’t be serious.”

(c) Gray stated that he was “so glad” his client had testified. Judge Gessner began to admonish Gray about the impropriety of this comment, but Gray interrupted and said, “That’s fine, Judge.” Gray interrupted the judge several more times before Judge Gessner was able to complete his instruction to the jury to disregard Gray’s statement.

(d) Gray told the jury “your integrity is on the line.” The ADA’s objection to this comment was sustained. Immediately thereafter, Gray told the jury that their “integrity is on the line at all times.” The State’s objection was again sustained.

His web page violated ethics rules

The following statements were prominently displayed in red typeface near the top of the homepage of cliftongraylaw.com: “BREAKING NEWS in attorney Gray’s cases!!!! 1. Raleigh Man Not Guilty of Murder 2. Texas Man Cleared of Trafficking Half a Key of Cocaine 3. Man Blows .18 and defeats DWI!!!

When a visitor to the website clicked on these statements, s/he was taken to another page (“the secondary page”) that contained an additional narrative by Gray about the murder case and displayed the following statements about cases Gray had previously handled:

• Texas Man Charged with Trafficking over 500g of Cocaine in Wilson County Freed

• Raleigh Man Charged with First Degree Murder Found Not Guilty

• Beaufort County Man Charged with Trafficking Cocaine Charges Suppressed

• Farmville Man Charged with DWI blows .18 and defeats charges.

Neither on the homepage nor on the secondary page was there a disclaimer indicating that the results described were merely illustrative or that these results did not guarantee a similar outcome in other cases.

And this incident led to a simple assault conviction

On 25 September 2012, Gray had an altercation with another driver in traffic (this individual is referred to hereafter as “the other driver”).

The altercation occurred in mid-day traffic on Capital Boulevard in Raleigh.

Gray pursued the other driver, pulled up next to the other driver while they were traveling down the road, and brandished a handgun at the other driver so that it was visible through his car window.

 Gray then pulled into a gas station behind the other driver, got out of his car, and approached the other driver’s vehicle, waving his arms and yelling.

The other driver was, at the time of the incident, in the car with his wife and young child.

Gray had no prior relationship with the other driver; the only provocation for Gray’s behavior toward the other driver was the manner in which the other driver operated his vehicle.

In the discipline case

Defendant has argued that the allegations of misconduct against him were primarily due to animosity by the Wake County District Attorney’s Office arising out of Defendant’s successful defense of a client charged with homicide in Wake County in 2010. This contention is belied by the fact that Defendant’s established pattern of misconduct was not confined to Wake County and was not limited to his representation of criminal defendants. Moreover, Defendant’s misconduct occurred in multiple counties, before multiple judges…

Defendant was threatening and intimidating to opposing counsel during the 2010 trial of State v. Oyenyin by invading the ADA’s personal space and shouting at her while court was in recess. This behavior is consistent with Defendant’s treatment of opposing counsel in the 2014 deposition of Murrell and the 2013 trial of State v. Nichols, described above. Verbally and physically aggressive behavior towards opposing counsel corrodes standards of professionalism among lawyers and tends to divert the targeted lawyer’s focus away from representing his or her client’s interests…

Defendant’s habitual lack of courtroom decorum jeopardized the public’s faith in the integrity of the judicial process. Defendant’s disrespectful courtroom conduct foreseeably caused significant potential harm to public perception of the legal profession by reinforcing the negative stereotype that lawyers are antagonistic and combative, and by diminishing the public’s expectation that attorneys will conduct themselves with dignity and adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The panel declined to order disbarment

Suspension of Defendant’s law license is necessary to protect the public because-although instances of prior discipline and admonishments from judges should have assisted Defendant in complying with the Rules of Professional Conduct-Defendant did not reform in response to clear directives that his behavior was improper. Notwithstanding these explicit warnings, Defendant’s pattern of client neglect, absenteeism, dishonesty, and refusal to participate in the self-regulatory process continued unabated.

The Panel considered disbarment but determined, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances, that disbarment is not necessary to protect the public. The Hearing Panel finds and concludes that the public will be adequately protected by a five-year suspension of Defendant’s license to practice law, with an opportunity to have one year of the suspension stayed upon compliance with conditions…

Defendant’s license to practice law in the State of North Carolina is hereby suspended for five years, beginning 30 days from the date of service of this order upon Defendant.

(Mike Frisch)