A Harassing Compliment
A reprimand has been ordered by the Grievance Commission of the North Carolina State Bar
You represented D. Rodrigues in a domestic case involving child custody and support. You contacted M. Rodrigues, D. Rodrigues’ ex-husband, and arranged a meeting for he and one other person to come to your office and meet with D. Rodrigues to attempt to resolve their issues. M. Rodrigues agreed to attend the meeting. You sent M. Rodrigues your business card by text message, identifying yourself as a “Dispute Resolution and Litigation Attorney.” You also sent M. Rodrigues a text message confirming the time and place for the “Child Support, Child Custody and Visitation Mediation” and thanking him “for choosing [your firm] for answers to all [M. Rodrigues’] legal questions.” By implying that you were disinterested and serving as a mediator in your text messages to M. Rodrigues when you represented D. Rodrigues, you violated Rule 4.3(b).
In or around August 2019, you filed a motion to compel against M. Rodrigues’ current wife, M. Rayol. When you arrived in the courtroom for the hearing on that motion, you complimented on M. Rayol’s appearance for no purpose other than to harass her in violation of Rule 4.4(a). In responding to the Letter of Notice in the grievance investigation, you stated that you did not know who M. Rayol was or why she was in the courtroom. This statement was false. You had previously met M. Rayol during the meeting at your office months before and you knew or reasonably should have known that she would be in the courtroom for the hearing on your motion to compel. Your conduct violated Rule 8.1(a).
On or about 21 January 2020, you went to M. Rodrigues’ home to assist in a custodial exchange. M. Rodrigues presented the minor child to its maternal grandmother. You approached M. Rodrigues while he was speaking to the child’s maternal grandmother, and a verbal altercation ensued between you and M. Rodrigues. You made derogatory remarks toward M. Rodrigues and remarks about M. Rodrigues’ failure to pay child support. At that time, M. Rodrigues was represented by counsel, and child support was a subject of the pending litigation. Your conduct violated Rules 4.2(a) and 4.4(a).
(Mike Frisch)