The Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board  imposed an agreed 30 day suspension for misconduct in a Nevada case that was removed from state to federal court

The underlying matter was a sexual harassment suit filed by Respondent and [local counsel] Ms. Nelson on behalf of their clients, Oliver and Beatrice Preiss.  The suit alleged that defendant, Roy Horn, a Las Vegas entertainer, sexually harassed Mr. Preiss who was his assistant at the time. The suit also alleged that Mr. Horn terminated Mr. Preiss when he refused to accede to Mr. Horn’s advances. Respondent and Ms. Nelson included a claim of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) on behalf of Mrs. Preiss claiming that her mere viewing of a video of the alleged sexual harassment and assault on her husband, after the fact, caused her emotional distress. Respondent and Ms. Nelson also filed a Title VII employment claim against an entity that the court found had never employed Mr. Preiss.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted and

In the Order, Judge Hunt found specifically that Respondent’s actions in opposing Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, “. . . wasted this Court’s and Defendants’ time and resources . . .” since Respondent’s clients’ claims, “. . . were not simply without merit but blatantly and undeniably so.” The court found that in order to support his clients’ contentions Respondent,”. . . had to twist their words and attempt to twist the law in order to defend the motion, and thereby violated their duty of candor towards the court . . .”

The court also sanctioned Respondent for arguments advanced by him on behalf of Mrs. Preiss in support of the NIED claim. The court found that Respondent’s defense of her, “. . . was absurd,” and Respondent’s willingness to defend Mrs. Preiss against the Motion to Dismiss, “. . . demonstrated Plaintiffs’ willingness to ignore the law and prolong these proceedings with baseless claims and frivolous arguments. Rather than making this ridiculous and nonsensical argument, Plaintiffs should have conceded this claim in their response and not required Defendants to continue defending against it.”

 And indicative of bad faith

Footnote 2 of the Order specified the “method of litigating the case” which the court found offensive: “The Court refers to Plaintiffs use of thinly veiled threats . . . use of tabloid media pressure to pressure Defendants . . . dishonesty with this Court . . . Plaintiffs continued arguments that they managed to deprive this Court of jurisdiction over this case, and other conduct as described in Defendants’ motion and accompanying exhibits. “

Respondent denied making any misstatements of fact or law to the court in the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, and denied any wrongdoing in the filing of the Motion for Remand. In addition, Respondent falsely claimed in response to the bar complaint filed with the Virginia State Bar (the “Bar”) that all responsibility for the sanctioned conduct rested with Ms. Nelson.

ln fact, the “thinly veiled threats” were made by Respondent and Respondent alone long before Ms. Nelson’s involvement in the case. Likewise, the “use of tabloid media pressure” referred to an interview Respondent set up for his client, Mr. Preiss, with the National Enquirer in which Respondent was quoted extensively and his picture prominently displayed. This interview took place before Respondent and Ms. Nelson had even met.

In the Virginia proceedings the effort to blame local counsel foundered when the Bar investigated his contentions

During the course of the investigation of this case, the Bar obtained metadata from the draft of the Opposition to the Motion Dismiss prepared by Respondent. This draft, in fact, did contain the offending language making clear that it was inserted in the draft by Respondent himself. It was also apparent from an examination of the draft prepared by Respondent that little revision was made to Respondent’s draft prior to its filing by Ms. Nelson, contrary to Respondent’s representations to the Bar.

Respondent made additional misrepresentations to the Bar during the course of the investigation of this matter, and to the District Committee below both in pleadings and during his testimony. Respondent’s misrepresentations included, inter alia, that: he had little contact with the clients in the case, Oliver and Beatrice Preiss; that he had no involvement in contacting the National Enquirer concerning Mr. Preiss’s case; that Ms, Nelson was lead counsel in the case and made all strategic decisions; that he had no responsibility for the inclusion of the NIED claim; and that he had minimal involvement in the prosecution of Mr. Preiss’s case in either federal or state court.

Respondent also falsely advised both the Bar and the District Committee in pleadings and during his testimony that he had no involvement in the representation of other plaintiffs, in addition to Mr. Preiss, in the state court litigation pursued after dismissal of the federal case referenced above.

The Las Vegas Sun reported on the underlying litigation. (Mike Frisch)