Beyond Rude In New Jersey
Another censure imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court for misconduct described in a letter decision of the Disciplinary Review Board.
The conduct at issue involved a personal real estate transaction and ensuing bar investigation
The Board concluded that respondent’s communications with the two real estate agents, the seller, Rafano, and Hayton-Hull were not merely rude; rather, they were insulting and unethical. Respondent repeatedly attacked the ethics of the real estate agents and Rafano, made a baseless allegation the seller and his agent were discriminating against her on the basis of religion, and repeatedly threatened to file complaints with various licensing boards based on her dissatisfaction with her home purchase. Worse, she attempted to leverage those threats to extract settlements from the parties (with the settlement demands varying widely, from $10,000 to $101,864). Moreover, respondent’s vexatious communications were incessant – seemingly with each new day, the parties on the seller’s side of the purchase were met with another e-mail containing another complaint about the purchase and a demand for settlement.
Additionally, even when Hayton-Hull directed respondent to contact her with any concerns, she persisted in her conduct toward the real estate agents. Additionally, shortly after the Property’s closing, respondent signed the Agreement, which seemingly had no impact on her conduct whatsoever. For example, she agreed to refrain from posting disparaging comments about Redfin or its agents. Not only did she post disparaging remarks, but she enlisted her mother to post comments on the internet as well. She also unilaterally declared the Agreement void in a misguided attempt to justify her actions. Thus, respondent’s scorched earth approach to her complaints far exceeded simple rudeness and, as she stipulated, clearly violated RPC 3.2.
Respondent’s misrepresentations to the DEC regarding the deletion of the disparaging remarks without question violated RPC 8.1(a). Even though she posted the comments in violation of the Agreement, she did not delete them, as she claimed to the DEC. The real estate agent was the individual who deleted the comments. Another lie she told the DEC was that a colleague prepared a draft complaint, but that it was never filed. Respondent later admitted to the DEC that the complaint had been filed but asserted that she immediately dismissed it so she did not have to incur expenses or deal with the emotions surrounding the litigation. However, respondent’s own e-mail to Rafano reflects that she dismissed the complaint so that he could speak with her, having informed her less than two hours earlier that he could not speak with her because she was represented by counsel. In fact, respondent’s dismissal of the complaint itself was a misrepresentation to the court, having stated that the parties amicably came to a resolution, which she knew was not true – Rafano refused to speak to her, and she had failed to serve the other parties with the complaint. However, respondent was not charged with having violated RPC 3.3(a)(1).
Finally, respondent’s misrepresentations to the DEC unquestionably violated RPC 8.4(c). Further, respondent misrepresented in her e-mail to the seller that Rafano advised her he was no longer representing him. Indeed, respondent admitted that Rafano had not replied to her e-mails. Worse, knowing that Rafano had not affirmatively told her he was no longer representing the seller, respondent contacted a party she knew to be represented, in violation of RPC 4.2, although the DEC did not charge her with having violated that Rule.
Sanction
On balance, when considering the totality of respondent’s misconduct, the Board found that the limited mitigation is insufficient to affect the Board’s determination that a censure is the necessary quantum of discipline to protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar. Additionally, the Board recommended the condition that, within sixty days of the Court’s disciplinary Order in this matter, respondent complete a CLE course in legal ethics and professionalism, as approved by the OAE.
(Mike Frisch)