Don’t Mess With Cats

A Pennsylvania Hearing Committee has recommended a two-year suspension of an attorney for misconduct in several matters.

One involved his representation of clients in connection with the death of their cat Hook

Adler represented Josh and Rachel Silverbauer with regard to the death of their cat Hook. It is alleged that Hook died after consuming cat food from a batch that had been voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer, Natural Balance, a company owned by the J.M. Smucker Company. At all relevant times, Bruce Davis, Esquire was in-house counsel for Smucker. In August, 2020 Davis filed a report with ODC against Adler for conduct he deemed “ethical violations.”

Findings

With regard to the Smucker matter, Adler is charged with violating Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1(a) which provides that in the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person, as well as related Rule RPC 8.4(c), addressing attorney misconduct for dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

Adler should have educated himself with regard to the nature of the chemical compound choline chloride before he made any claim about the cause of Hook’s death, and certainly before he made false allegations about the cause of Hook’s death, both to the manufacturer and on social media. The fact that Adler made certain key words searchable in the applications (apps) deems Adler’s conduct even more reckless and egregious because of the knowingly defamatory harm he was causing to Smucker. This is akin to bringing a medical malpractice action without understanding the nature of the medical procedure involved, misstating the procedure at issue and then authoring and publishing documents yourself opining about the cause of your client’s injuries based on your own misstatement of fact and opinion (neither of which the attorney, not a medical professional, is competent to make).

Adler’s testimony that he did not know the difference between choline chloride and chlorine before he sent the letter to the Board and before the social media posts, is incredible given Davis’ credible testimony and Davis’ email letters to the contrary.

The attorney had posted false statements on LinkedIn and Twitter about the situation.

Sanction

Adler’s perception that if he apologized for his actions/inactions it set everything right, lacks accountability for his conduct and fails to address the impact of his conduct on is clients and the profession. Adler’s continued mode of practice is unorganized, unnecessarily confusing and a detriment to the legal profession.

Instead of presenting as an individual falling on his sword, his conduct at the hearing was to the contrary; in one breathe Adler was apologizing to his clients, and in another, cross-examining them about the work he did perform, in a poor attempt to justify why he did not refund any of the fees paid to him. The sad irony being that since Adler failed to send his clients invoices reflecting the tasks he performed, pursuant to his fee agreements, he did not know what he owed them, or did not agree on how much he owed them.

For the reasons stated above, it is the recommendation of the Hearing Committee that Adler’s license to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should be suspended for a period of two (2) years.

The report and appeals briefs can be found here. (Mike Frisch)