No Reinstatement For Former Attorney’s Hate Crimes

Reinstatement has been denied to an attorney struck from the rolls in 2012 by the New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department. 

The attorney had been disbarred as a result of a felony conviction reported by the Times Union and sought reinstatement when the conviction was vacated.

Between May 2010 and July 2010, Hennessey made upward of 200 phone calls to 38 recipients through a website — http://www.bluffmycall.com — which allowed him to block his phone number. At times he made it appear on victims caller ID that his calls were coming from the Ku Klux Klan in Arkansas.

Prosecutors say Hennessey also phoned real estate agents warning them not to rent homes to black people in his neighborhood near St. Peter’s Hospital. And they say he used a computer to alter his voice on the calls. In one of the calls, Hennessey threatened to kill a black woman in his neighborhood. In another, he told a victim that “we are going to kidnap the little black boy who plays outside and tie him up.”

Albany police and FBI agents traced calls to Hennessey through documents from the website, Verizon Wireless, a Time Warner Cable account and Hennessey’s Internet provider address.

Here the court recounted the misconduct

A full hearing was conducted with respondent represented by counsel. Thereafter, the Referee issued a report substantively sustaining all three charges of misconduct set forth in the petition of charges.  Specifically, the Referee concluded that respondent engaged in professional misconduct when he intentionally made threatening and racist telephone calls to his African-American neighbors, as he admitted to under oath during the prior criminal action. The Referee further did not find credible respondent’s current claims that he never recalled engaging in said conduct and that his prior sworn statements to the contrary were the result of, among other things, his poor hearing and the urging of his criminal defense counsel. The Referee therefore concluded that respondent cumulatively engaged in intentionally deceptive conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer, and was prejudicial to the administration of justice.

As to resumption of practice

In this case, it cannot be ignored that the Referee’s conclusion that respondent engaged in the unjustified victimization of his neighbors on the sole basis of their race is a matter not to be taken lightly and represents a matter of legitimate concern to the public, as well as the bar. A further indication as to respondent’s future capacity as an attorney is the persuasive proof in this record supporting the Referee’s finding that respondent did not testify with candor while under oath…

Significantly, the Referee expressly found that respondent’s hearing testimony was not credible, particularly discrediting respondent’s “claims of either mental illness or drug impairment as justifying his purported lack of recollection of the events leading to his criminal conviction.” Upon review of the record before us, we conclude that the record supports the Referee’s findings and conclusions that respondent committed the charged professional misconduct by making racist and threatening anonymous phone calls to his neighbors and then falsely claiming that he did not recollect engaging in that conduct for the purpose of covering up or minimizing his actions.

The disbarment order remains in effect. (Mike Frisch)