A Man Named Ray
A three-year suspension has been ordered by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department based on conduct that had resulted in a conviction for misdemeanor aggravated harassment in the second degree
The record shows that on August 8, 2018, the respondent was arrested and charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 240.30, a class A misdemeanor. According to the criminal information, the respondent and SC had then recently ended a two-year romantic relationship but had continued to communicate through email and Instagram. On April 27, 2018, the respondent sent SC an email which stated, “[T]here is no way this ends with yoh [sic] surviving.” On May 5, 2018, the respondent sent an email to SC, stating “[SC] you should be dragged in a barn and shot in the fucking head.” On July 2, 2018, the respondent sent SC a message on Instagram stating that he had contacted a man named Ray who was waiting in a hotel for instructions and that “[I]f I find out that you devote any of this to [individual B] I will kill you and I will do it as quickly as possible.” The respondent then wrote and sent SC a fake press release, which stated, “[T]he partially decomposed body of a 51-year-old woman was found today in the brush along rt. 25 in center Moriches. The police have identified the victim as [SC] and released a statement saying only that [SC] lived a transient lifestyle.” The criminal information stated that these were only a few of many threatening and harassing messages received by SC.
Upon the Grievance Committee’s investigation, the respondent submitted a letter to the Grievance Committee stating that his Instagram messages were “taken completely out of context, or outright fabrications,” which a full transcript of the respondent’s Instagram correspondence would establish. The respondent stated that after the relationship ended, SC tried to re-establish their relationship, and that SC could have blocked the respondent on Instagram if she did not want to have any contact with him. Nevertheless, the prosecutor pursued the charges and “chose to substitute his judgement for that of the rule of law.” The respondent stated that he pleaded guilty because “[t]rial was out of the question for reasons that I omit for brevity and relevance.”
In his letter, the respondent also stated that he was retired from a nearly 30-year career at Con Edison, and that he was an adjunct professor at Pace Law School teaching environmental law, and was an adjunct professor at City University of New York teaching environmental management. The respondent said that he maintained a small private practice and that he worked as a per diem attorney for Docketly. At the pre-hearing conference, the respondent also informed the Special Referee that he performed pro bono legal work in domestic violence matters and worked with opioid-addicted children on Long Island.
Before the Special Referee, the respondent acknowledged his “wrongdoing,” but reiterated that the Instagram messages he sent to SC were taken out of context or “fabricated completely.” The respondent also alluded that he had pleaded guilty not because he was guilty, but because his attorney had advised him that if SC took the stand and “shed[ ] a few tears,” the respondent would be convicted. Therefore, the respondent agreed to plead guilty, but refused to allocute, to which the prosecutor agreed. When asked if he had attended therapy or any other programs to address his criminal conduct, the respondent answered, “[T]hat’s not something that I would even consider doing. . . . I haven’t been in any programs.” The respondent was also given the opportunity to provide evidence that he attended an anger management program, which he was directed to complete as part of his sentence, but he failed to do so.
Sanction
Under the totality of the circumstances,we find that the respondent’s conduct warrants his suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years.
(Mike Frisch)