Sanctioning Discourtesy In Jersey

The New Jersey Supreme Court imposed a reciprocal reprimand based on a sanction ordered in Delaware.

The report of the Disciplinary Review Board notes the rather unusual basis for the sanction – the attorney’s conduct involved his repeated efforts to refuse court appointments and discourtesy shown in his efforts to avoid the work.

Besides having been discourteous towards Judge Henriksen, respondent repeatedly tried to avoid court appointments. In fact, he admitted that, in addition to the three matters before the Delaware Board, he had repeatedly tried to get out of appointments in the past, to no avail. His disregard for the appointment process and failure to follow proper procedures related to that process consumed valuable court resources.

From a letter to the appointing judge

Although I have very limited experience with Your Honor . . Your Honor may recall a case where I became involved after your initial judgment, where Your Honor convicted an unrepresented 13 year old of a felony (in violation of her constitutional right to counsel) stating on the record, incorrectly, that the 13 year old was represented by counsel. I submitted a postconviction letter to Your Honor identifying these and other facts. Your Honor subsequently recognized his mistake and vacated/reversed the judgment. Even though a foot surgeon and brain surgeon are both doctors, you would not want a foot surgeon to perform your brain surgery. The elementary principal [sic] – if you don’t know it, don’t do it – should apply. For [the client]’s protection, a business lawyer who does not practice family law should not be representing [the client] in Family Court.

The DRB on sanction

the Delaware Board looked at respondent’s experience, noting that he had practiced law since 1995 and that, while his primary practice was not in the area of family law, by his admission to the bar he had demonstrated a basic general level of competency to practice law. In addition, before the three appointments at issue, respondent had already served as a family court-appointed counsel in other cases, including serving in one matter for over four years.

In mitigation, the Delaware Board noted respondent’s lack of disciplinary history, the absence of a dishonest or selfish motive, and his cooperation with the disciplinary process.

Pages 14-20 of the DRB report looks at comparable cases involving discourteous New Jersey lawyers. It’s a hoot.

My favorite

(attorney reprimanded after he filed baseless motions accusing two judges of bias against him; failed to treat judges with courtesy (characterizing one judge’s orders as “horseshit,” and, in a deposition, referring to two judges as “corrupt” and labeling one of them “short, ugly and insecure”), was discourteous towards his adversary (“a thief”), the opposing party (“a moron,” who “lies like a rug”), and an unrelated litigant (the attorney asked the judge if he had ordered “that character who was in the courtroom this morning to see a psychologist”)…

The DRB and court orders can be found at this link. (Mike Frisch)