In The Matter Of Vincenti

Facts

D represented D.K., the defendant in a child abuse/neglect case involving D.K.'s four children. During the trial, D was frequently sarcastic, disrespectful, and irrational, and accused the Court on numerous occasions of, collusion with the prosecution, cronyism, racism, permitting the proceedings to have a 'carnival nature', conducting a kangaroo court, prejudging the case, conducting a 'cockamamie charade of witnesses' and barring defense counsel from effectively participating in the proceedings, conducting a sham hearing, acting outside the law, being caught up in his 'own little dream world', and ex-parte communications with the prosecutor together with other equally outrageous, disrespectful and unsupported charges. These and other comments were made frequently throughout the proceedings and continued at length. A panel of the local ethics committee (P) prepared a carefully documented report of 60 pages, unanimously adopted by the Committee as its presentment charging D with unethical conduct. P found that D's conduct exhibited a 'constant and deliberate disregard of the minimum standards of conduct expected of a member of the bar' through his repeated discourteous, insulting, and degrading verbal attacks on the judge and his rulings and that these repeated discourses substantially interfered with the orderly process of the trial. P determined that it could not be excused under the rubric of zealous representation. P concluded that D was guilty of unprofessional conduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), DR 7-106(C)(6), and DR 8-102(B) [prohibiting, respectively, conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct that adversely reflects on one's ability to practice law, undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal, and the knowing making of false accusations against a judge]. D also engaged in collateral actions that P determined were designed to gain advantages in the pending litigation by demeaning and harassing both the judge and opposing counsel. This conduct includes the forwarding of a letter to both the Deputy Attorney General representing the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) and the Assistant Public Defender who was the statutory law guardian to the four children. Within that letter, D demanded that these attorneys remove themselves from the case because of what he perceived to be their breach of confidentiality of the case. He further advised that he had asked their superiors to remove them from the case. He did, indeed, forward that letter to both the Attorney General and the Public Defender. The charged improprieties had no basis in fact. D also reviewed a witness's files while she was testifying and failed to return them thereafter. The Deputy Attorney General located the files on the counsel table and returned them. D, in open court, then accused the Deputy Attorney General of stealing the files, and accused her of being a 'bald-faced liar', and 'a thief, a liar and a cheat.' D also filed an ethics complaint against the Deputy Attorney General for her actions. P concluded that D was in violation of DR 7-102(A)(1) and (5), and DR 7-106(C)(6) [governing the representation of a client within the bounds of the law and proscribing certain trial conduct]. D alleged that the trial judge had participated in extortion as well as cronyism, bias, prejudice, racism, and religious bigotry during the trial, again without any basis in fact. One incident involved an honest mix-up of payments made to a court-appointed psychologist. D even sent the judge a letter some parts of which stated: 

“You have simply closed your mind to our position and have retreated into a dream world, not unlike the somnambulist in that early German classic story at the turn of the century.

  How do we make any kind of recommendations to you while you sleep-walk through your judicial duties? How does one get through to you?

  Regrettably, we have no faith in your ability to preserve your objectivity herein, for whatever reason(s) I don't know.” 

P concluded that these various written and oral statements violated DR 1-102(A)(4), (5), and (6) [misconduct]; DR 7-102(A)(1) and (5) [representing a client within the bounds of the law]; and DR 8-102(B) [prohibiting the knowing making of false accusations against a judge]. P concluded that D engaged in reprehensible behavior towards witnesses, potential witnesses, opposing counsel, and other attorneys outside the courtroom but inside the Courthouse. D even attempted to intimidate witnesses. Verbiage included 'shmuckface', 'fuck-face', 'shit-head', and '* * * shove it up your ass.' D even physically pushed into parties as well. P concluded that these actions were designed to ridicule, embarrass, and harass the individuals concerned, and in the case of his adversaries, his conduct was designed to intimidate them in the performance of their duties. The Committee therefore found that respondent had violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6).

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.