“Not A Slave”

The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded an attorney admitted in 2018 for misconduct in a child support matter.

From the Disciplinary Review Board report and recommendation is a description of a status conference in a domestic relations matter

During the status conference, respondent became argumentative with Judge Wilson regarding whether he had filed a response to F.W.’s notice to produce documents. Specifically, respondent repeatedly interrupted Judge Wilson, claiming that he never had received any e-mails or telephone calls from Judge Wilson’s staff regarding the notice to produce. Respondent also accused the Judge, in a combative tone, of (1) engaging in a “bullying match” “every time [he was] on the line” with her, (2) prohibiting him from answering her questions, and (3) refusing to allow him “to make a proper record.” Consequently, Judge Wilson cautioned respondent not to speak over her and that the only bullying match going on is with you.”

Additionally, when Judge Wilson directed that respondent wait his turn to speak and advised him that he was being “disrespectful” for interrupting her, he interjected by declaring that “this is a free court,” and that he was “not a slave.” Respondent also proclaimed that he was “making a record for my client litigating a case and you’re saying talk when I tell you to talk,” in reply to which Judge Wilson reminded respondent that he was “in a court of law.” Immediately thereafter, respondent repeatedly accused Judge Wilson of “not talking to Ms. Daniels like that,” following which Judge Wilson reminded respondent that Daniels had not interrupted the proceedings.

Further, when Judge Wilson told the parties that she had heard a “television” playing in the background, respondent maintained that he was “on two records right now.” In reply, Judge Wilson again reminded respondent that “this is a court proceeding.”

Finally, during the status conference, respondent maintained that E.B. “was stuck paying pendente lite” child support and that he had filed a motion to modify that support award approximately two weeks earlier. Judge Wilson, however, advised respondent that she had not received any such motion.

In his verified answer and during the ethics hearing, respondent acknowledged that he had not filed a motion to modify E.B.’s pendente lite child support obligation, as he had told Judge Wilson; however, he claimed that he did not realize that he had “misspoken” until he had reviewed the formal ethics complaint underlying this matter. Respondent characterized his conduct as a “non-malicious misrepresentation of fact,” given his view that, if he “was going to be untruthful to the court . . . it would seem that [he] would indeed [have] attempt[ed] to cover up the misrepresentation by subsequently filing the motion.” Further, respondent maintained that, on February 20, 2021, he had assisted another attorney in preparing a motion to modify a custody arrangement in connection with an unrelated post judgment matrimonial matter. Although he conceded that he did not have a large case load at that time, respondent noted that he “quite possibly mixed-up filings and/or work done” on the unrelated client matter.

At the bar hearing

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.

Misconduct findings in the underlying representation

Respondent’s prolonged refusal to file a motion to modify E.B.’s child support payments left E.B. without the basic level of competent representation required of all lawyers. Moreover, respondent’s conduct resulted in E.B. accruing significant arrears and facing potential arrest for a child support obligation that he could not afford. Thus, respondent violated RPC 1.1(a), RPC 1.3, and RPC 3.2.

And

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. 

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)