Category Archives: Lawyer threats and discipline

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

Missouri Supreme Court suspends lawyer who used payroll document and opposing counsel’s written direct exam questions from e-mails hacked by client

 

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert update blog which will discuss the disciplinary case against a Missouri lawyer who failed to disclose payroll document and direct examination questions of opposing counsel which were obtained by his client/husband by hacking the wife’s e-mail account, used them at a settlement conference, and planned to use them at a trial+.  The disciplinary case is In Re: Joel B. Eisenstein, No. SC95331 (Missouri SC 4/5/16) and the opinion is here: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=99378.  My previous blog on this case is here:  https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/missouri-lawyer-alleged-to-have-used-payroll-document-and-opposing-counsels-written-direct-exam-questions-from-e-mails-hacked-by-client/.

According to the disciplinary opinion, the lawyer was representing the husband in a dissolution matter.  The husband hacked the wife’s e-mail account and obtained her payroll documents and a list of direct examination questions prepared by the wife’s lawyer for the upcoming trial.  The husband gave the lawyer the payroll document in November 2013 and he used the payroll information in the document during a mediation/settlement conference before the trial.

During the trial, the lawyer provided documents to the opposing counsel which included a list of the direct examination questions which the opposing counsel had prepared and sent to her client via e-mail.  The opposing counsel asked the lawyer why he had the list of questions and he told her that there were some leading questions and he planned to object to them.

During a hearing that followed on the issue, the lawyer stated that his paralegal had erroneously included the questions in the stack of exhibits and claimed that he was joking when he made the remark about the leading questions to opposing counsel.  He admitted that he had received the documents from his client and failed to disclose them to opposing counsel.  The lawyer later sent opposing counsel an e-mail stating: “Rumor has it that you are quite the ‘gossip’ regarding our little spat in court. Be careful what you say. I’m not someone you really want to make a lifelong enemy of, even though you are off to a pretty good start. Joel’”.

According to the opinion, the lawyer violated Missouri Bar rules by failing to promptly disclose to opposing counsel that he had received the information/documents from his client and by sending the threatening e-mail to opposing counsel, which was prejudicial to the administration of justice.  According to media reports, the lawyer is 70 years old, and the opinion set out the lawyer’s prior disciplinary record:

Mr. Eisenstein’s license has been disciplined on five prior occasions. In 1991 and again in 1999, Mr. Eisenstein was admonished for violating Rule 4-3.5(b) by engaging in ex parte communications with the judge. In 1997, this Court suspended Mr. Eisenstein after he  pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor for willfully failing to file an income tax return. In 2001, Mr. Eisenstein was admonished for violating Rule 4-8.1(b) by failing to respond to the OCDC’s request for information regarding an ethics complaint. Finally, in 2004, Mr. Eisenstein was admonished for violating Rule 4-3.3(d) for failing to inform the court of material facts relevant to a pending issue.

The opinion of the majority suspended the lawyer indefinitely and for a minimum of 6 months with reinstatement conditioned upon the lawyer meeting the requirements for readmission.  Two justices dissented and said that the lawyer should be suspended indefinitely and for a minimum of 12 months.  The dissenting opinion stated it was inappropriate for the lawyer to solicit the bar and judiciary to influence the state supreme court in the case and “(o)ne of these solicitations took the form of an e-mail titled ‘I’m too old for this xxxx!!’ (Expletive deleted.)” The e-mail from the lawyer included what he claimed was a “complete history” of the case which the dissent stated “varies greatly from the facts” found by the disciplinary hearing panel.

Bottom line:   As I stated in my earlier blog, this was very serious misconduct and the opinion makes it clear that the lawyer knew that the documents were obtained without the wife’s permission and did not advise opposing counsel.  Compounding the misconduct, the lawyer used the improperly obtained payroll document to his advantage  at a mediation/settlement conference and may also have been planning to use the direct examination questions to his advantage without opposing counsel’s knowledge until the paralegal included the document with the copies of exhibits by mistake.  The lawyer also sent an e-mail threatening the opposing attorney if she pursued the matter and tried to improperly influence the court.   The sanction may have been more severe in a different jurisdiction.

Be careful out there…and of course, do not do this.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice 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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

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, Attorney misrepresentation, Confidentiality, Confidentiality and privilege, deceit, dishonesty, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, lawyer confidentiality, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threats and discipline

Indiana lawyer who criticized judge’s “stubbornly injudicious attitude” and threatened Bar complaint against opposing counsel given 60 day suspension

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 60 days without automatic reinstatement who accused a judge of having a “stubbornly injudicious attitude” and threatened Bar complaint against opposing counsel. The disciplinary case is In the Matter of Michael E. Halpin, Case No. 45S00-1408-DI-559 (11/10/15), and the disciplinary opinion is here:  http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2015-45S00-1408-DI-559.pdf

The lawyer represented the mother in a paternity and custody case in 2012 and 2013.  According to the opinion, “(i)n several written communications between August 7, 2012 and April 12, 2013, Respondent accused Father’s counsel of having arranged venue in Tippecanoe County by fraud, deceit, and trickery; of intentionally violating Mother’s rights as a disabled person in refusing to transfer venue to Lake County; and in engaging in other unprofessional and unethical conduct.  Respondent also wrote to Father’s counsel, ‘[y]our possibly homophobic, racist, sexist clients should not be using the Courts to further that agenda.’”

“In some of these communications, Respondent threatened to file a disciplinary complaint against Father’s counsel unless counsel would accede to Respondent’s demands that venue be transferred to Lake County. Respondent also accused Father of having stolen money from his client and proposed that Respondent and Mother would not press criminal charges if opposing counsel would agree that the paternity case should be transferred to Lake County.”

In a motion filed in April 2013 challenging the denial of a change of venue, the lawyer said the judge who denied the change of venue had a “stubbornly injudicious attitude” toward the court proceeding, and that the judge was “taking off on detours and frolics that ignore the fact that there are laws in Indiana that the court is supposed to follow and uphold.”

According to the opinion, the lawyer’s conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and he had acted in an offensive manner.  The hearing officer found the lawyer’s lack of remorse as aggravation, and his lack of prior discipline as mitigation, which the opinion adopted.  The lawyer was suspended for 60 days beginning on December 21, 2015, without automatic reinstatement.

Bottom line: This appears to be another example of a lawyer going too far in “zealously” representing a client and, in this case, the lawyer’s conduct resulted in a 60 day suspension for the lawyer, who had no prior discipline (and also apparently had no remorse).

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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under and other derogatory remark, and other derogatory remarks, Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer derogatory remarks, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer disparaging comments about lawyers and judges, Lawyer disparaging comments about lawyers and judges in pleadings and appeals, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threatening Bar complaint, Lawyer threatening disciplinary charge, Lawyer threats and discipline

Florida Supreme Court permanently disbars lawyer for “defiant and contemptuous conduct”, and practicing while suspended

Hello and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the October 8, 2015 Florida Supreme Court opinion which permanently disbarred a lawyer for contempt of his previous 2 year suspension order, threats to Bar counsel, and “unrepentant attitude”.  The case is The Florida Bar v. Jeffrey Alan Norkin, Case Nos. SC11-356 and No. SC13-2480.  The opinion is here:  http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2015/sc11-1356.pdf

The lawyer was serving a two-year suspension which began in 2013 for “appalling and unprofessional behavior” during litigation over a dispute between business partners. He also received a public reprimand administered by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ricky Polston in 2014.

According to the October 8, 2015 opinion, in the previous disciplinary case:

Respondent made threatening and disparaging statements to a senior judge, who had been appointed to serve as a provisional director by civil trial Judge Dresnick. This misconduct violated Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-8.2(a) (a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, mediator, arbitrator, adjudicatory officer, or public legal officer) and 4-8.4(a) (a lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct). Respondent also demonstrated unprofessional and antagonistic behavior during numerous hearings in the civil case. Respondent’s behavior was offensive to both Judge Dresnick and successor Judge Valerie Manno Schurr. His conduct also disrupted the proceedings, in violation of rule 4-3.5(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal).  Finally, Respondent made approximately ten disparaging or humiliating statements to opposing counsel. Respondent yelled insults at opposing counsel in the hallway of a courthouse in front of other attorneys. Respondent shouted in front of a judicial assistant and other attorneys that opposing counsel was a liar. Such misconduct was in violation of rule 4-8.4(d) (prohibiting an attorney from engaging in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against other lawyers on any basis).”

My previous blogs on the 2 year suspension case are here:

https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/florida-supreme-court-suspends-lawyer-for-2-years-for-appalling-and-unprofessional-behavior-including-screaming-at-judges-and-opposing-counsel/

and here: https://jcorsmeier.wordpress.com/2014/09/17/florida-supreme-court-issues-in-person-public-reprimand-to-lawyer-suspended-for-2-years-for-appalling-and-unprofessional-behavior/

The Florida Bar filed a petition for contempt and order to show cause in December 2013 alleging that the lawyer failed to provide the required affidavit attesting to his notification to clients, opposing counsel, and judges that he was suspended.  The Bar filed an amended contempt petition in January 2015 alleging that the lawyer had practiced law after he was suspended by e-mailing opposing counsel regarding a pending case, discussing the results of a hearing, and preparing a pleading for his former client.

The amended contempt petition also requested that the lawyer be sanctioned for sending three offensive and threatening e-mails to Bar counsel and pointed out that the lawyer showed his contempt for the Court through his facial expressions and body language during the public reprimand.  The video of the lawyer’s 2014 public reprimand is here: http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/viewcase.php?eid=2129

According to the opinion, “(a)t the hearing on the motion for sanctions, the referee questioned Norkin about the e-mails and his behavior during the public reprimand administered by this Court.  In response, Norkin asserted his ‘right to speak freely and to express his beliefs in the manner of his choosing,’ and freely admitted that during the public reprimand, he intentionally smirked and stared down each Justice one by one.”

The referee granted summary judgment on the issue of the lawyer’s alleged practice of law while suspended and failure to notify clients, opposing counsel, and judges that he was suspended, found him in contempt.  For that and other misconduct, including “knowingly or through callous indifference disparaged, threatened, and humiliated bar counsel” by sending threatening e-mails, the referee recommended that the lawyer be disbarred.

The opinion affirmed the referee’s findings that: “Norkin’s e-mails to bar counsel referred to bar counsel as ‘evil’ and ‘despicable’; called the proceedings against him ‘the most unjust act in judicial history’; stated that bar counsel had no conscience; and stated, ‘I’m preparing the lawsuit against you. Keep an eye out.’”

The opinion further stated: “Given Norkin’s continuation of his egregious behavior following his suspension and during the administration of the public reprimand, we conclude that he will not change his pattern of misconduct.”  “Indeed, his filings in the instant case continue to demonstrate his disregard for this court, his unrepentant attitude, and his intent to continue his defiant and contemptuous conduct that is demeaning to this court, the court’s processes, and the profession of attorneys as a whole.”  The opinion affirmed the referee’s recommendation and permanently disbarred the lawyer.

Bottom line:  This opinion (presumably) concludes the very long saga of this lawyer’s prosecution by The Florida Bar and makes it clear that this lawyer continued to engage in extreme and outrageous behavior and practiced law after he was suspended and failed to comply with the suspension terms, which resulted in his permanent disbarment.

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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

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, Florida Bar, Florida Lawyer Professionalism, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer abusive e-mails, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer permanent disbarment for contempt of suspension order, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threats and discipline, Lawyer unauthorized practice of law while suspended, Lawyer unlicensed practice of law, Lawyer violation of court order

Illinois Bar complaint alleges that lawyer left racially and religiously abusive voice mails and neglected a criminal appeal

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent disciplinary complaint filed by the Illinois Disciplinary Commission against a Chicago, Illinois lawyer alleging, inter alia, that the lawyer left abusive voice mails telling the father of one client that “all black people are alike”, calling a nursing home administrator a “stupid Jew ass”, and using other abusive racial and ethnic language in the voice mails.  The disciplinary complaint was filed in the case of In the Matter of the Michael Jerome Moore, Commission No. 2015PR00076 (August 26, 2015) and is here: http://www.iardc.org/15PR0076CM.html

The first count of the disciplinary complaint alleges that the lawyer represented a client in defending criminal aggravated battery charges beginning in 2012.  The lawyer left voice mails with the client’s father in the summer of 2014 in an attempt to collect $300.00 in additional fees. The father had already paid a $3,500.00 under the fee agreement, as well as an extra $200.00.  The voice mail included the following statements:

“You are a piece of garbage. All black people are alike. You’re slovenly, ignorant.”

“You better give me my money or your son’s case is going to be delayed.”

“I’m sick of you, you piece of shit.”

“Low class n—–s. I’m going to have you all locked up.”

“You’re ugly, low class, ignorant. I’ll finish with you when he gets off. You’re demeaning your son.”

The second count of the disciplinary complaint alleges that the lawyer represented an individual in matters related to a power of attorney that the individual had executed for the lawyer to assist him.  The client was moved out of a nursing home and the lawyer left a voice mail with the nursing home in June 2014 protesting the nursing home’s release of the client. The voice mail included the following statements:

“You know, I tried to be academic, intellectual, and community-minded and everything else with you. What you’re supposed to do as a nursing home, you piece of [shoe or Jew] garbage. You put my girl out in the street and didn’t give a fuck, and didn’t let her come back, and know that she is mentally challenged. Are you mentally challenged, you piece of shit? Let me tell you something. There is a tort–with your stupid ass, you don’t know what that is—called violation of fiduciary capacity. And that’s what you’ve done in this, with your stupid Jew ass. Mother-fuck you, how you fucked my girl. Okay, I’m going to sue you, a federal law– I’ll sue you, sue the fuck out of you. You should’ve knew better. Fiduciary capacity carries with it a responsibility of the particular concerns of the person involved. She’s schizophrenic, hyper-paranoid schizophrenic, you piece of shit.”

The third count of the disciplinary complaint alleges that the lawyer violated the Illinois Bar disciplinary rules by:

“failing to provide competent representation to a client, by conduct including failing to file a completed petition for waiver of appellate fees and affidavit of indigency signed by Thomas and failing to respond to orders of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in violation of Rule 20:1.1 of the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct; and

failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, by conduct including failing to file a completed petition for waiver of appellate fees and affidavit of indigency signed by Thomas and failing to respond to orders of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, in violation of Rule 20:1.3 of the Wisconsin Rules of Professional Conduct.”

Bottom line: This is another “you couldn’t make this up” moment.  If the allegations are true, it appears that anger management may in this lawyer’s future.  Although this is clearly an extreme case (if the allegations are true) it provides me with a good opportunity to remind all lawyers (and non-lawyer staff) that we all must be extremely careful with our words in voice mails, e-mails, and all other communications.  Also, we must always keep in mind that a voice mail message may very well be accessed by a person other than a client; therefore, a v/m message should not reveal any attorney/client confidential information.

Be careful out there.

As always, if you have any questions about this Ethics Alert or need assistance, analysis, and guidance regarding these or any other ethics, risk management, or other issues, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Disclaimer:  this blog 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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

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, ethnic, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer abusive e-mails, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer lack of competence, Lawyer lack of diligence, lawyer offensive racial, lawyer racial, Lawyer racially and religiously abusive language, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threats and discipline

Indiana lawyer disbarred for, inter alia, “profoundly disturbing” harassment, “repugnant pattern of behavior and utter lack of remorse”

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss the recent Indiana Supreme Court opinion which disbarred a lawyer for a “repugnant pattern of behavior and utter lack of remorse”, deceitful responses and lack of candor, neglect involving an appeal, unwillingness to appreciate the wrongfulness of his misconduct, and propensity to shift blame to others and see himself as the victim.  The case is In the Matter of R. Mark Keaton, No. 02S00-1302-DI-95 (April 21, 2015).  The link to the opinion is here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04211501per.pdf

According to the opinion, the lawyer, who was married at the time, began a romantic relationship with his daughter’s roommate.  The roommate ended the “tempestuous long-distance relationship” in March 2008 and “from March 2008 through April 2010, at least 7,199 emails were exchanged between The lawyer and the roommate), the vast majority sent by (the lawyer). Both (the lawyer’s) oral and written communications to (the roommate) were threatening, abusive, and highly manipulative in nature.”

The lawyer also left “profoundly disturbing” voice mails on the roommate’s telephone and the opinion gave an example of one of the them: “(Shouting) Call me the f— back! I don’t know who the f— you think you are.  But I’ll tell you what, you better f—ing call me f—ing back now!  You f— with me one more time and this time you’ll really f—ing pay for it!  And you need to think about it! Now you f—ing quit f—ing with me!”

The lawyer also threatened suicide and carried through on his threat to post nude photos of the roommate, by sending them to others in e-mails, posting them on adult websites, and posting them on his own blog, along with “disparaging diatribes” about her.  According to the opinion, the lawyer still refuses to take down his blog.  The lawyer also filed three lawsuits against the roommate and others and “made duplicitous statements to the (disciplinary commission) in reference to those related proceedings.”

The lawyer argued that his contact with the roommate was mutual and consensual.  He further argued that she had a form of mental illness and her requests for him to stop contacting her actually indicated her desire to submit to him.  He also argued that his actions did not constitute stalking or harassment.

The opinion states that this “outrageous behavior falls woefully short” of the ethics requirements that lawyers be of good moral character and fitness. “Put simply, (the lawyer) engaged in-and continues to engage in-a scorched earth campaign of revenge in the wake of being dumped by (the roommate) seven years ago”. “Most disturbingly, despite the entreaties of (the roommate) and several others, (the lawyer) simply has refused to take ‘no’ for an answer.”  The Court disbarred the lawyer effective immediately since the lawyer was already suspended and imposed costs.

Bottom line:  This case involves some very disturbing conduct by a lawyer who apparently went off the deep end and engaged in outrageous conduct when an individual with whom he was having a relationship (his daughter’s former roommate no less) broke it off.  This case is disturbing on multiple levels, including the apparent complete lack of recognition by the lawyer that his conduct was outrageous and unethical and arguing that it was not stalking or harassment.

Be careful out there (and of course don’t do this).

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.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

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 conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer disbarment, Lawyer disbarment personal misconduct, Lawyer discipline, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer sanctions, Lawyer threats and discipline

Colorado lawyer suspended for 6 months for making threatening call to Charles Schwab office after he was locked out of spouse’s 401k account

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent Colorado Supreme Court opinion suspending a lawyer for 6 months for making a threatening call to an Arizona Charles Schwab office after he was locked out of his spouse’s 401k account. The opinion is In the People v. Stuart Adam Jay, 14PDJ030 (5/13/14) and a summary of the disciplinary opinion on the Colorado Supreme Court’s website is here:
http://www.coloradosupremecourt.us/PDJ/ConditionalAdmission/Jay,%20Conditional%20Admission%20of%20Misconduct,%2014PDJ030,%205-13-14.pdf

According to the case summary on the Colorado Supreme Court’s webpage, on November 13, 2013, the lawyer made a threatening phone call to an Arizona Charles Schwab office because he was locked out of his wife’s 401k account and wanted access. He made threats against the Denver Charles Schwab office, stating that if he “did not gain access to his wife’s account innocent people at the Denver office would be ‘hurt’ and the office would be ‘gone.’”

The Denver police department sent two officers to the lawyer’s residence and he answered the door holding a “two-foot long antique bayonet”. The officers pulled their firearms and told the lawyer to drop the sword. He complied and was taken to jail and charged. The lawyer pled guilty in January 2014 to a charge of felony menacing and was sentenced to two years deferred judgment and supervised probation.

The lawyer self-reported the criminal conviction and agreed to a conditional admission that he violated Colorado Bar Rule 8.4(b), which prohibits a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.

According to the summary, “(the lawyer’s) lengthy struggle with depression, anxiety, and treatment for those conditions may have contributed to his misconduct.” The conditional admission of misconduct was approved and the lawyer was suspended for six months effective May 13, 2014 with a requirement that he petition for reinstatement to practice.

Bottom line: This lawyer appears to have had serious stress/depression/anxiety issues which caused a complete breakdown and the bizarre behavior. Stress can be any lawyer’s worst enemy. Hopefully he will get help and will be able to recover and return to practice.

Let’s be careful out there.

Disclaimer: this Ethics Alert blog is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice 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.
2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431
Clearwater, Florida 33759
Office (727) 799-1688
Fax (727) 799-1670
jcorsmeier@jac-law.com
http://www.jac-law.com

Leave a comment

Filed under Attorney discipline, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer conduct adversely affecting fitness to practice, Lawyer conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, Lawyer criminal conduct, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer threats and discipline