Social Media Attacks Draw Double Disbarment
The New York Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department has imposed reciprocal discipline based on a Florida disbarment
In July 2020, respondent was disbarred from the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Florida based upon sustained charges that she had, among other things, engaged in threatening behavior and used online social media to make disparaging remarks about a member of the Judiciary and to engage in an extensive and unjustified public attack against two attorneys.
As to misconduct
As for the proof supporting the sustained misconduct, respondent does not deny that she was the author of the inappropriate social media and other communications directed at her perceived adversaries; in fact, her submissions to this Court clearly set forth her apparent entrenched position that her actions were justified and that she is somehow exempt from the disciplinary rules that all licensed attorneys are required to follow. Significantly, the First Amendment does not grant an attorney the right in this state to advance unsubstantiated and baseless criticisms of the Judiciary.
The court concluded that disbarment was the appropriate reciprocal sanction.
The Miami Herald reported on the Florida proceedings when the attorney was suspended on an emergency basis
In an article she wrote for her law firm’s website titled “When You Don’t Let Female Lawyers Talk, We’ll Only Get Louder,” Krapacs, 33, described both Williams and Kaplan as an “old white male” and, of the April 12 hearing, “I realized that I was going to lose that hearing regardless of how strong my argument was. The bias in that hearing was so subtle, I didn’t fully detect it in the moment. But, after listening to the recording, it was clear as day.”
The Bar found issue with calling the 56-year-old Williams and the 60-year-old Kaplan “old white males,” as well as the accusation of bias. The Bar quotes a hearing transcript as evidence Krapacs’ claims of mistreatment and bias are spurious. Krapacs’ response “denies that the transcript is accurate.”
The ABA Journal also covered the Florida case.
Krapacs called Williams “a moron and a sexist and a bully” and said Bacchus was “a backstabbing traitor” for representing “misogynist pigs, misogynist bullies” like Williams.
“She’s a door lawyer,” Krapacs said. “Which is basically a lawyer who takes anything that walks in the door in any area of law.” In later posts about Bacchus, Krapacs used hashtags that included #sellout and #womanhater.
Bacchus sought the injunction against stalking after Krapacs posted a Home Alone meme showing a shotgun pointed at a perpetrator. Krapacs added the caption “when opposing counsel tries to use the same exact trick you saw in your last case.”
The origins of the controversy are described in this opinion of the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal overturning a cyberstalking injunction granted against the attorney
This case initially sprang from Krapacs’ own petition for an injunction against her former boyfriend due to domestic violence concerns. Attorney Russel J. Williams represented the former boyfriend before the trial court while Krapacs, also an attorney, represented herself. After her petition was denied, Krapacs wrote an article stating that Williams lied to the judge on the record during these proceedings. As a result, Williams hired attorney Bacchus to sue Krapacs for defamation. Krapacs responded by hiring an attorney and writing several social media posts disparaging Bacchus with personal insults for representing Williams in the defamation suit against her.
…Krapacs’ actions do not qualify as cyberstalking because they did not constitute a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over time evidencing a continuity of purpose.
Disbarment seems pretty severe for this, in my opinion. (Mike Frisch)