Here Comes The “Judge”

In a busy day of reciprocal discipline matters, the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department censured an attorney for letters written to a Connecticut judge

On April 24, 2018, a hearing was held in a criminal case in the State of Connecticut in which respondent’s daughter was one of two victims of domestic violence. Respondent’s daughter attended the hearing, but respondent did not. At the hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that respondent was representing his daughter and that the daughter wished to be heard to request an increase in the protective order against the defendant. The prosecutor stated that the State agreed with the recommendation that the defendant receive diversion and that it would enter a nolle prosequi if the defendant successfully completed diversion. The Judge denied the daughter’s request to be heard and adjourned the matter to August 21,2018, for the defendant to complete the diversion program.

On May 17, 2018, respondent wrote a letter to the Judge stating that he was “upset and disappointed with the treatment [his] daughter received” as a victim in the criminal case. He stated that his daughter “missed her classes as a [university] student to appear at the sentencing of [the defendant] and sat there all day to be told by the court that she wasn’t going to be heard, which was her right as a victim in this case.” On August 2, 2018, respondent filed a complaint against the Judge with the State of Connecticut Judicial Review Council (JRC). The complaint stated: “[The Judge] refused to allow my daughter . . . and her girlfriend . . . to speak at the sentencing of [the defendant].” Respondent further stated that it was his daughter’s right to address the court at sentencing and stated that the Judge had refused to allow either woman to speak. On October 17, 2018, the JRC dismissed respondent’s complaint.

On May 31, 2019, the Judge filed a complaint against respondent with Connecticut’s Statewide Grievance Committee (SGC) alleging that respondent had made a materially false complaint against him. The Judge stated that respondent’s daughter had asked to address the court on the matter of modifying a protective order, and the request was denied. The Judge noted that the matter was then simply continued for the defendant to comply with the required diversion. The complaint alleged, that despite having the transcripts of the proceeding and being aware that no disposition had taken place, respondent filed a complaint stating that defendant had been sentenced and that the Judge had violated his daughter’s constitutional rights by refusing to allow her to be heard before defendant’s sentencing. 

By letter dated June 21, 2019, respondent answered the Judge’s grievance stating that the Judge’s complaint is “ridiculous and obviously retaliatory.” The letter also referred to the Judge in a disparaging manner and called him a “Judge” with quotation marks around the title.

By letter dated July 3, 2019, the Judge replied stating that respondent knew or should have known that this was not a sentencing proceeding or a Family Violence Program application and that no one had the power to object to a prosecutor’s decision to nolle charges. The Judge further stated that since respondent, a criminal defense attorney, had to be aware that this was not a sentencing proceeding, and that his daughter therefore did not have the right to make a statement, his claim was materially false.

By letter dated July 27, 2019, respondent continued to disparage the Judge. Respondent’s letter stated that the Judge failed to take responsibility for his failures and that “this ‘Judge’ is such a narcissist that he’s more worried about retaliating against me than doing his job to ensure that victim’s rights are upheld.”

Disciplinary proceedings ensued in Connecticut

On January 21, 2022, the Committee found that respondent’s misrepresentation of the April 24, 2018, hearing as a sentencing proceeding violated Connecticut RPC 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(3). Furthermore, the Committee found respondent’s disparaging statements of the Judge and placing the word judge in quotes violated Connecticut RPC 8.2(a), and all the statements violated Connecticut RPC 8.4(4). As a result, the Committee reprimanded respondent for his misconduct.

Greater discipline was sought in New York

By notice dated April 16, 2024, petitioner Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) now moves, under Judiciary Law § 90(2) and 22 NYCRR 1240.13 and the doctrine of reciprocal discipline, to discipline respondent, based on the reprimand issued by the OCDC, by suspending him for a period of two months, or, in the alternative, sanction him as the Court deems just and proper.

No suspension

Respondent is an attorney with no prior disciplinary record, whose comments do not appear to be made with malice but appear to be the product of his emotions. His misconduct does not rise to a level warranting suspension (see Matter of Denenberg, 192 AD3d 76 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Dinhofer, 257 AD2d at 327-328). The originating jurisdiction sanctioned respondent by imposing a reprimand, and the facts are not so egregious that we should depart from our general rule. Therefore, we find that public censure is the appropriate sanction.

(Mike Frisch)