Censures For Litigation Misconduct

The  North Carolina Grievance Committee has imposed public censures for litigation misconduct in two unrelated matters.

One involved a motion to disqualify counsel

You represented Mr. and Mrs. R (the Rs) in a bankruptcy case. On July 10,2017, you filed on behalf of the Rs a Motion to Disqualify Attorney AH and his firm, MWH. On August 31, 2017, Mr. H filed a Motion for Sanctions against you and the Rs.

A bankruptcy judge considered the motions filed by you and Mr. H. On October 21,2019, the judge filed an order denying the motion to disqualify Mr. H and his firm and granting the motion for sanctions against you and your clients. The judge ruled that the motion to disqualify was not warranted by existing law. The judge further held that “the objective evidence in these proceedings demonstrates that the Rs and [you] filed the Motion to Disqualify despite knowing that the factual allegations contained therein were false.” The court held that you filed the motion to disqualify for an improper purpose in violation of Rule 9011 (b)(1) of the bankruptcy rules and that the motion to disqualify was “purely tactical, driven by anger, embarrassment, and ‘hurt feelings.'” The court concluded that “the  motion to disqualify was not legally and factually warranted, and it was not interposed for a proper purpose. Nor was it timely. Rather’ the Rs/[you] employed the Motion to Disqualify as a tactical weapon against the Liquidating Agent in defense of this action. It was wielded in an effort to intimidate Hand and MWH from pursuing return of the Tax Refunds from the Rs in this action.”

The Grievance Committee found that your conduct, as found by the bankruptcy judge, violated Rule 3.1 and Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The other involved the sale of real property

In February 2019, you sent an email to the attorney serving as guardian of the estate of I.W., expressing your belief that it was improper for him to sell I.W.’s property as directed by a January 2019 court order, and contending that his actions as guardian of the estate had not been in the best interests of I. W. You copied this email – which contained several baseless allegations of malfeasance by the guardian and other assertions that were false or without legal and/or factual basis – to outside entities and the media.

In August 2019, you were convicted in New Hanover Superior Court of indirect contempt of court for the conduct described above. The court determined that your allegations against the guardian and the manner in which you disseminated them were designed to deter the guardian from complying with an order of the court directing the sale of I. W. ‘s real property. 

(Mike Frisch)