When Admonition Is “Woefully Insufficient”

The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured an attorney.

The Disciplinary Review Board had declined to vacate a default

As to the first prong of the MVD test, respondent failed to offer a reasonable explanation for his failure to file a conforming answer to the ethics complaint. Instead, he engaged in unsupported attacks against the OAE and its procedures; the witnesses; Judge Carver; the OBC; and us. His answer is replete with paragraphs that are simply “denied” and claims that other paragraphs “consist[] of unsubstantiated legal conclusions and do[] not warrant a response.”

The alleged violations were charged in three counts as decribed by the DRB.

Count One involved a landlord-tenant dispute where Respondent was the pro se defendant

count one of the ethics complaint charged respondent with having violated RPC 3.2 by continually interrupting [landlord’s counsel] Blender during mediation and calling him a scumbag; RPC 3.5(c) by repeatedly interjecting and speaking over Judge Citrino during the hearing and leaving the courtroom when told the matter would proceed to trial; and RPC 8.4(d) by repeatedly interrupting the proceeding; refusing to abide by Judge Citrino’s rulings and instructions; calling the trial a “sham;” and leaving the courtroom when informed that the matter would proceed to trial.

Count Two involved the appeal effort

By way of e-mail sent a few minutes later [to an Appellate Division attorney], respondent stated:

Sure I can pay $500 to try and enforce your poorly researched and vaguely worded decision. The appellate division has either dropped the ball or is in on the scam. [C¶68;Ex.2.]

Based on the above facts, count two of the ethics complaint charged respondent with having violated RPC 8.2(a) by making his comment to the Appellate Division attorney.

Count Three involved an unrelated court argument

count three of the ethics complaint charged respondent with having violated RPC 3.2 by calling opposing counsel “clowns;” RPC 3.5(c) by repeatedly interrupting Judge Chiocca’s bench decision, contrary to the instructions of the judge and the sheriff’s officer, and by calling the judge “corrupt;” RPC 8.2(a) by stating that Judge Chiocca’s decision was “extrajudicial” and calling him “corrupt;” and RPC 8.4(d) by  continually interrupting Judge Chiocca, referring to his decision as “extrajudicial,” and calling him “corrupt.”

After its survey of the extensive prior caselaw on colorful outbursts by Garden State  attorneys

Based on New Jersey disciplinary precedent, an admonition would be woefully insufficient discipline for the totality of respondent’s conduct. The attorneys who received admonitions engaged in conduct limited to a single client matter in a single court appearance. Respondent’s conduct took place during two court hearings in two matters, one of which also involved a mediation. His remarks were directed at two trial judges, the Appellate Division, and continues, currently, toward New Jersey disciplinary authorities.

A suspension, however, would be too harsh. Aside from the improper remarks, respondent did not commit additional, equally serious ethics infractions, such as lying to the court and adversaries (Stolz and Rifai) or threatening others. He also has an unblemished disciplinary history (Van Syoc).

Thus, either a reprimand or a censure is in order.

The board opted for a censure recommendation. (Mike Frisch)