Practice Pointer: Don’t Hit Send
The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department has censured an attorney for emails sent to a judge
By petition of charges noticed September 16, 2024, the Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) alleged that respondent was guilty of professional misconduct for having “sent two emails to a judge’s personal and work email address, one of which was ex parte, wherein he demanded the judge take certain actions in respondent’s pending matrimonial matter and wherein he baselessly accused the judge of being a racist and used vulgar and otherwise disdainful language toward the judge.”
AGC and respondent now jointly move under Rules for Attorney Disciplinary Matters 22 NYCRR § 1240.8(a)(5) for discipline by consent and request that this Court publicly censure respondent. The parties stipulate that on August 14, 2023, respondent, while representing himself pro se, inappropriately sent an ex parte email to the judge who was presiding over his matrimonial matter, insisting that the judge vacate certain orders before the judge recused himself from the matter. Respondent also stated therein that all respondent cared about was his “brown sons.” At the time respondent sent this email, he had been informed by members of the judiciary that the judge would be recusing from his case. Respondent sent this email to the judge’s personal email address, which he possessed because the judge had subscribed to respondent’s firm newsletter and had friended respondent on Facebook after respondent had evaluated the judge’s candidacy for Civil Court some years prior as part of a screening panel. The judge previously recused himself from respondent’s case and then unrecused. After learning of the impending recusal, respondent felt the judge was taking too long and that critical educational decisions needed to be made for his children to be dealt with before a new judge. After the judge had formally recused, on August 21, 2023, respondent sent another inappropriate email to the judge’s work email address, this time copying opposing counsel and various court staff, using discourteous language, accusing the judge of being racist and sexist and insinuating that the judge’s rulings against him were the product of that racism and sexism.
Mitigation
AGC and respondent stipulate to the following factors in mitigation: that respondent has no disciplinary history, has fully cooperated with AGC’s investigation from its inception, and is remorseful for his misconduct. They further agree that “None of the communications in question took place during the representation of a client. Rather, the emails were sent in the context of a highly charged matrimonial proceeding during which the presiding judge made rulings that respondent perceived to be harmful to his children… respondent’s misconduct was triggered by a personal reason… involving his family and his judgment was therefore clouded…” Respondent submitted nine character letters from longtime friends, classmates, and former clients that demonstrate his good character.
Sanction
In light of the relevant case law, respondent’s admitted misconduct, and the mitigating factors presented, public censure is an acceptable sanction here.
(Mike Frisch)