Combative Behavior Draws Reprimand

The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded an attorney and required that he “complete a continuing education course in legal ethics and professionalism approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, within sixty days of the Court’s order…”

Among the ethics violations found by the Disciplinary Review Board

Here, respondent violated RPC 3.2 and RPC 3.5(c) based on his belligerent conduct towards Judge Wilson during the March 2021 status conference. Specifically, during that proceeding, respondent became argumentative with Judge Wilson and repeatedly interrupted her regarding whether he had received correspondence from the court concerning his discovery obligations. Respondent also baselessly accused the judge, in a combative tone, of (1) engaging in a “bullying match” with him “every time [he was] on the line” with her, (2) refusing to allow him to answer questions, and (3) prohibiting him from making “a proper record.”

Respondent, however, refused to heed Judge Wilson’s directive that he wait his turn to speak and, when she cautioned him that his conduct was “disrespectful,” he continued to interrupt her by proclaiming that he was in “a free court” and that he was “not a slave.” Thereafter, when Judge Wilson reminded respondent that he was “in a court of law,” he repeatedly accused her of “not talking to [] Daniels like that,” even though Daniels had not interrupted the proceedings.

Respondent’s behavior unquestionably exceeded the bounds of acceptable colloquy during a court appearance and constituted inappropriate attacks upon Judge Wilson’s objectivity and ability to control the proceeding. Rather than control his behavior, as Judge Wilson had instructed, respondent displayed a lack of civility that disrupted the administration of that court proceeding.

The combative behavior continued in the bar proceeding

During the ethics hearing, respondent repeatedly engaged in overly combative and unprofessional behavior, both while cross-examining E.B. and while addressing the hearing panel chair.

The DRB rejected a false statement charge based on a misstatement that a motion had been filed

Given the lack of evidence concerning respondent’s intent at the time of the status conference, and because the presenter did not attempt to refute respondent’s claim that he had made a mistake when addressing Judge Wilson regarding the modification motion, we adopt the hearing panel’s recommendation and dismiss the RPC 3.3(a)(1) charge for lack of clear and convincing evidence.

Sanction

On balance, weighing the substantial financial harm respondent caused to his client against his relative inexperience at the time of his misconduct, we determine that a reprimand is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.

Additionally, given respondent’s multiple episodes of unprofessional behavior throughout this matter, we determine to recommend the condition that, within sixty days of the Court’s disciplinary Order in this matter, respondent complete a continuing education course in legal ethics and professionalism, as approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics.

(Mike Frisch)