Stalking Conviction Draws Suspension

An 18-month suspension was imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court for misconduct described by the Disciplinary Review Board

Specifically, on August 7, 2019, respondent and R.S. met at a Pennsylvania train station, exchanged business cards, and began to communicate via text message, telephone call, and in-person meetings. This meeting occurred after respondent had first noticed R.S. at the train station, months earlier, at which time he placed a “note of flirtation” under the windshield wiper of her car. R.S. did not recall having received the note, but respondent was emphatic that he placed the note on the correct car, noting that R.S. “caught [his] attention driving into the parking lot one morning.” Respondent did not take the train on August 7, 2019 but, rather, told R.S. that he was at the train station that morning for the sole purpose of interacting with her.

Following that meeting and through the beginning of September 2019, in addition to their telephone and text message communication, respondent and R.S. occasionally met in person. However, during that time, despite respondent’s romantic overtures, R.S. repeatedly told him that she was only interested in friendship.

She reiterated her lack of interest

Following R.S.’s text message again asking him to stop referring to getting married or having a love affair – because they were just friends – respondent launched into a vulgar series of text messages in which he asked if R.S. was “just kidding Billy” and was “enjoying his attention?” Respondent accused R.S. of “cock teasing” him and referred to R.S. previously declining an invitation to have sexual intercourse with him. In so doing, respondent repeatedly referred to the size of his genitals and told R.S. he did not like being “teased.”

The communication – and her expressions of disinterest – continued

Respondent replied immediately with four text messages demanding that R.S. return his property and stated “this has been a charade” and “U [sic] got off on it [. . .] Right?” Respondent followed those text messages with three more text messages describing R.S. using sexually explicit, derogatory, and profane words, including calling R.S. a lesbian, a “cock tease,” and a “c**t.”

On September 7, 2019, at 5:49 p.m., R.S. permanently ended her friendship with respondent by sending a text message stating:

I just returned the 3 books I borrowed and the poster you had given to me as a gift. It’s all in front of your door. I don’t want you to ever contact me again, either directly or indirectly. If you do, I will not respond back and will contact the police immediately and file a complaint.

There followed a series of obscene messages and Respondent filed a police report

For several days following R.S.’s message specifically stating that she did not want respondent to contact her, respondent sent more than ninety text messages that were sexually explicit, disparaging, and threatening. The text messages were in addition to his two voicemail messages offering to negotiate a contract for sexual intercourse…

Respondent told the detective that R.S. was a “f**king, d**k tease, c**t.” Respondent stated that he had been receiving telephone calls from R.S. but that the number now appeared to be blocked. However, respondent claimed to know calls were coming from R.S. Consequently, respondent was “adamant” that the police investigate R.S. for fraud, even though respondent could not explain what criminal behavior R.S. had engaged in and had no evidence that she was committing a crime against him.

Following the interview, the detective prepared an Incident Data Sheet and wrote that he repeatedly had asked respondent to provide details of the crime he believed R.S. was committing; instead of answering, however, respondent described R.S.’s body and “would digress to a point where he would demonstrate the sex act of placing his head between her breasts, shaking it back and forth, while his tongue hung out of his mouth making noises . . . .” The detective also noted that, throughout the conversation, respondent frequently would become agitated and refer to R.S. as a fraud and a “Man Hating, Cock teasing, Lesbian, C**t.” Furthermore, respondent told the detective that he was a “self proclaimed expert in pornography, specifically lesbian pornography, and compares himself to Howard Stern.”

The texts persisted and R.S. contacted the police

Also on September 11, 2019, respondent traveled to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. While there, respondent met with three special agents (two female and one male) because he wanted to file a complaint against former Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, as well as the Pennsylvania Attorney General, for sexually assaulting R.S.  Prior to meeting with respondent, one of the female special agents was informed that there was an individual present who was extremely vulgar and had yelled at the female receptionist in the building. The receptionist was reported to be shaken by respondent’s behavior, which continued once he was in the conference room with the three agents.

He ultimately pled guilty to stalking

Ultimately, Judge Carmody sentenced respondent to two days imprisonment followed by twenty-three months of probation. Judge Carmody also prohibited respondent from contact with R.S.; directed him to undergo a mental health evaluation and follow all recommendations; and ordered him to complete fifty hours of community service. Due to the COVID pandemic, respondent was allowed to contribute to a charity in lieu of performing community service.

He was suspended for three years in Pennsylvania

Respondent failed to report his criminal charges or conviction to the OAE as R. 1:20-13(a)(1) requires.

In New Jersey

As conditions precedent to reinstatement, we determine that respondent must provide to the OAE (1) proof of ongoing compliance with psychiatric treatment, and (2) proof of his fitness to practice law, as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the OAE.

(Mike Frisch)