Reciprocal Censure For Alex Jones Attorney

A reciprocal public censure has been imposed based on a Connecticut sanction by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department

In assessing the appropriate discipline, Judge Bellis noted that the respondent’s conduct was knowing and intentional. The Connecticut court determined that there was “no doubt that the deponent was mistreated and that this deposition conduct has a potential chilling effect on other witnesses in this case, such that there is both actual and potential injury.” Turning to the mitigating factors, the court stated that the respondent had a clean disciplinary history since his Connecticut admission in 2012 and his admission to other jurisdictions since 2001, and he cooperated with the disciplinary process. However, in May 2021, the court warned the respondent from invoking the rules of professional conduct as a weapon in his filings, and in June 2021 warned the respondent to refrain from inappropriate commentary and ad hominin criticism of the court in his filings. Thereafter the court was confronted with the misconduct at the September 17, 2021 deposition. The court also considered [deponent] Jacobson’s vulnerability and that the respondent had not fully expressed his remorse.

The conduct

The respondent represented the defendants in a consolidated matter titled Lafferty v Jones, et al., Sherlach v Jones, et al., and Sherlach v Jones, et al., in the State of Connecticut, Superior Court, Waterbury Judicial District. The respondent’s misconduct stemmed from his behavior at a remote videotaped deposition held on September 17, 2021, in questioning a plaintiffs’ witness, Robert Jacobson. Jacobson worked on video editing projects for defendants Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems, LLC.

At the deposition, Jacobson, who appeared without counsel, testified that he had been employed by defendant Free Speech Systems, LLC, until his sudden termination by defendant Jones in 2013 or 2014, after Jacobson voiced his concern that Jones and his staff writers were not engaged in legitimate journalism in their reporting of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. After his termination, Jacobson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging antisemitism by Jones and his staff.

At the time of the deposition, Jacobson had been displaced from his home in Louisiana by Hurricane Ida earlier that month and was temporarily residing in New York. He had left Louisiana in haste, and taken only a few articles of clothing, his cell phone, and his car. Jacobson testified that he had searched for physical documents responsive to plaintiffs’ subpoena while he was in Louisiana, but those documents had been lost or misplaced. Jacobson further testified that his cell phone had cloud storage, but contained no documents responsive to the subpoena served on him. The respondent, nevertheless, asked Jacobson to conduct a search of his phone.

The colloquey at issue is set out in the decision.

In Connecticut

The Connecticut court issued an order to show cause on October 7, 2021, to address whether the respondent violated certain rules of professional conduct during the deposition. A hearing was held on December 15, 2021, in which the respondent appeared with counsel and exhibits were entered. In a written order dated January 28, 2022, Judge Bellis found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent’s conduct “exceeded the permissible parameters of legitimate advocacy” and violated rule 3.5(4) (engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal) of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct. Judge Bellis also found by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent violated rule 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented person) of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct when he failed to inform Jacobson that the respondent could not give Jacobson legal advice instead of persuading Jacobson that he was legally obligated to search his phone.

(Mike Frisch)