Category Archives: Lawyer threatening e-mails

New Jersey lawyer is reprimanded for telling Bar discipline official that he should “go f*** himself”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent reprimand of a New Jersey lawyer who, inter alia, told a Bar official to GO F**K YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”.  The case is In the Matter of Michael Rychel, Docket No. DRB 16-250, District Docket No. IIA-2014-0007E.  The April 10, 2017 OAE disciplinary report is here: http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1082359 and the February 9, 2018 discipline Order is here:  http://drblookupportal.judiciary.state.nj.us/DocumentHandler.ashx?document_id=1094024

The lawyer was admitted to practice in New Jersey in 1992.  According to the April 10, 2017 OAE report,  the lawyer sent e-mails to the director of the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) and an OAE investigator on November 7, 2012.  The e-mails were sent within minutes of each other.

The lawyer’s first e-mail to the OAE investigator stated:  “Do me a big favor and tell Director Centinaro, THANKS FOR THE BACK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I really appreciate his f*****g lack of concern. THIS IS A F*****G ATROCITY THAT AN HONEST LAW ABIDING ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS S**T!!!!!! TELL CHARLES CENTINARO THAT I SAID TO GO F**K HIM SELF [sic]!!!!!!!! QUOTE ME IN YOUR REPORT!!!!!! NO OFFENSE AGAINST YOU, I KNOW YOU’RE A DECENT HONEST GUY.  mIKE RYCHEL”

In the second e-mail to the OAE director, the lawyer stated:  “Hey Charlie, here’s an example of what you’re [sic] f*****g AMBULANCE CHASING attorneys and their minions do to honest hardworking attorneys who comport their conduct to the RPC’s, 2C and the IRS code. Thanks so much for the back up [sic]. Look personally between me and you GO F**K YOURSEL ELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Mike Rychel”

The lawyer testified that the reason that he was so upset and sent the e-mails was that he perceived system-wide corruption by ethics officials who handled his claims of misconduct against others, and was “troubled that his grievances had been dismissed.”   He said that he sent the second e-mail to the OAE director because he was afraid the investigator would not convey his message.

The lawyer also admitted that his e-mail was “emotive, that it was discourteous, it lacked civility. Any further inquiry, whether or not it is abusive, whether it’s lewd, whether it’s obscene, I believe is superfluous and goes beyond the parameters of the Rule in terms of proving the necessary — the necessary proofs of a violation of a 3.2.”

The discipline Order reprimanded the lawyer and required the payment of the disciplinary costs and dismissed the grievance filed by the lawyer against the OAE since that was “no reasonable prospect of proving unethical conduct by clear and convincing evidence.”

Bottom line:  This lawyer apparently was so upset that he completely lost his ability to think clearly and he also failed to follow the very simple rule to think before sending an e-mail communication (or text message) which is instantaneous and permanent and cannot be taken back.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19 N. Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Joseph Corsmeier

about.me/corsmeierethicsblogs

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer abusive e-mails, Lawyer abusive e-mails and cursing in e-mail, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer e-mail to Bar lawyer cursing and abusive, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer threatening e-mails

Georgia Supreme Court rejects lawyer’s agreement for reprimand for threatening and improper e-mails in his divorce case

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent opinion of the Georgia Supreme Court rejecting an agreement between a lawyer and the Georgia Bar for a reprimand as a sanction for the lawyer’s “inappropriate threatening language, intimidation and personal attacks directed to opposing counsel” during his divorce case. The case is In the Matter of John Michael Spain, No. S17Y0010 (February 27, 2017) and the Court’s opinion is here:  http://www.gasupreme.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/s17y0010.pdf

The lawyer, who was admitted in Georgia in 1999, sent the e-mails over a period of two days while he was representing himself in his divorce matter.  He pled no contest to misdemeanor charges of stalking and harassing communications related to the e-mails and was sentenced to one year of probation on each count to be served consecutively.

In the agreement with the Georgia Bar, the lawyer admitted that the e-mails included “inappropriate threatening language, intimidation and personal attacks directed to opposing counsel, including inappropriate remarks about counsel and members of her family, and ad hominem statements about his wife.”

The lawyer cited as mitigating factors that he had no prior discipline and that he was suffering from his personal and emotional problems related to the marriage and stated that he has received professional help for his problems and he has retained a lawyer to represent him in the divorce.  He also stated that acted in good faith to rectify the consequences of his conduct by entering the pleas, that he has cooperated fully with the Bar, that his misconduct did not involve his practice or his clients, that he was deeply remorseful and recognized that his conduct was contrary to his professional obligations and longstanding personal values, and that he wished that he could reverse his actions.

The Georgia Bar agreed to the reprimand under the “unique set of circumstances’; however, after reviewing the record and relevant cases, and analyzing the facts, the opinion rejected the petition for voluntary discipline for a reprimand.

Bottom line:  This case involves some allegedly egregious conduct by a lawyer who was representing himself in his own divorce proceeding.  A lawyer is responsible for his or her actions, even if the conduct occurs outside of the representation of a client if they result in violations of the Bar Rules.  This also appears to clearly demonstrate the application of the old proverb, commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln (although likely much older), that: “A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client”.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

29605 U.S. Highway 19, N., Suite 150

Clearwater, Florida 33761

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer discipline for criminalconviction, Lawyer disparaging statements to opposing counsel in own divorce, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer threatening e-mails, Lawyer threats and discipline