The Picabia

An attorney’s conduct in dealing with court orders filed in attempts to enforce a $2.5 million judgment against him drew a one-year suspension from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The Disciplinary Review Board had found acts of dishonesty in the removal of a valuable piece of artwork and sale by Sotheby’s.

The artwork

during his interview with the OAE, respondent noted that, within his home’s billiard room, he had a wall specially constructed so that he could display a painting by Francis Picabia, titled Effet de soleil a Saint Honorat (the Picabia). The Picabia is approximately seven-and-a-half feet by ten feet in dimension. According to respondent, the Picabia was the first piece of art [wife] Anne acquired and she “cherished” it. Indeed, respondent referred to Anne as an “art aficionado” who would spend her time with friends attending art shows and auctions because it was “their thing.”

The sale

at the November 7, 2013 Sotheby’s auction, the Picabia sold for $1,565,000, far exceeding the expected sale price of between $600,000 and $800,000. Factoring in Sotheby’s commission for selling the Picabia, respondent received net sales proceeds of $1,300,000.

Misconduct

we conclude that respondent violated RPC 8.4(c) three distinct ways. First, he lied during his deposition testimony about the value of the artwork in his home and the prominence of the artists who painted the artwork. Second, respondent lied to the court by stating he did not have an opportunity to review the April orders, when, in fact, he had reviewed them when Judge Steele issued them and understood the Picabia to be on the Sheriff’s inventory, which he was prohibited from removing from his home. Third, respondent falsely told the OAE that Sotheby’s only removed the Picabia from his home for photography purposes when, at the time of the removal, he clearly intended for Sotheby’s to sell the painting at its November impressionism auction.

Sanction

We conclude, based upon disciplinary precedent, that a significant term of suspension is warranted for the totality of respondent’s misconduct. Here, respondent failed to satisfy a lawful judgment obtained against him; lied under oath; lied to a court; filed litigation in a misguided attempt to prove that Anne owned everything in his home; and filed civil litigation against his adversaries in a partial attempt to justify his own misconduct. Such conduct demonstrates that respondent has an utter disregard for the requirement that attorneys conduct themselves honestly and with integrity.

And

Compounding those misrepresentations, during the ethics investigation, respondent lied to the OAE about his intent to sell the Picabia and denied that he had violated Judge Steele’s orders or lied during his deposition testimony. In short, respondent has shown no remorse for his actions and has failed to accept any responsibility for his calculated and knowing misconduct. To the contrary, during the ethics proceeding, respondent repeatedly attempted to argue that [opposing party and counsel] GECC, Tangible, and Cohen committed a fraud, which should have somehow vacated Judge Steele’s April orders, and according to respondent would have excused his misconduct. Such an argument sorely misses the mark because, even if there was a fraud in the civil litigation, it is independent from, and does not excuse, respondent’s conscious decision to lie under oath at every opportunity he had in order to protect his assets from a judgment properly obtained against him. Before us, during oral argument, respondent once again asserted that he had done nothing wrong in this case.

Mitigation

In significant mitigation, respondent has been practicing for forty-eight years with no disciplinary infractions. Respondent is active in his church and was invaluable in helping his church address and implement procedures to protect against the sexual abuse of children. Finally, respondent’s misconduct occurred nearly ten years ago.

(Mike Frisch)