Judge Demands Resignation of Lawyer Who Wrote Profanity-Laced Emails
"You just trashed your profession," U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II told attorney Christopher Hook at a hearing Monday, before asking him to resign. At issue were emails Hook wrote to his opposing counsel in an insurance dispute, telling them to "eat a bowl of dicks" and "pay up fuckface."
December 16, 2019 at 06:32 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
An angry federal judge demanded that a Los Angeles lawyer resign from the legal profession after his profanity-laced emails got national attention.
"You just trashed your profession," U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II of the Central District of California told Christopher Hook at a hearing Monday. At issue were about 100 emails filled with profane and discriminatory remarks that Hook wrote to opposing counsel, telling them, among other things, to "eat a bowl of dicks" and "pay up fuckface."
Wright, a former deputy sheriff in Los Angeles County and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, told Hook he had acted "like a gangster."
"Tell you what, slick, this profession does not need you," the judge said. "I am going to do what I can to remove you from this profession."
He then asked Hook to resign.
"I will not do that," Hook responded, prompting Wright to interject.
"Shut up," the judge said. "I want you to resign from this profession."
Wright had earlier ordered Hook to show why he should not sanction him and toss his case in light of his actions after a team at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton filed an ex parte application, attaching the emails. Sheppard Mullin represents Allstate Insurance Co. in a Los Angeles couple's lawsuit, filed Aug. 13, seeking at least $350,000 in reimbursement for water damage to their $3.6 million house.
The Nov. 26 ex parte application also sought a restraining order against Hook, of the Law Offices of Christopher G. Hook in Culver City. Hook wrote his opposing counsel to inform Allstate, "I am going to waterboard each one of their trolls that show up for depo without any mercy whatsoever," according to the emails attached to the Sheppard Mullin lawyers' filings. Hook also wrote that Sheppard Mullin partner Peter Klee would "get fucking tattooed across the face." He also told Klee, "I know where you live," identifying his home address and his wife by name.
Hook's emails also used discriminatory language, referring to the Sheppard Mullin lawyers as "gay boys" among other epithets.
"Haha. Fuck you crooks. Eat a bowl of dicks," Hook wrote in response to Sheppard Mullin partner Marc Feldman's claim that the dispute was over just $200,000. Hook had asked for as much as $306 million, according to exhibits attached to the ex parte application.
Over the weekend, following national media coverage of the dispute, Hook appeared on "Reasonable Doubt," a podcast hosted by Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos and comedian Adam Carolla.
Monday's hearing, which lasted less than 30 minutes, had a theatrical flair from the start, when Wright asked about Hook's whereabouts.
"That's a good question, your honor," said Matthew O'Hanlon, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Barnes & Thornburg, which sought to replace Hook in the case. "The fact that he is not here is unexplained and troubling."
Wright said he was not troubled.
"Everybody knows why we're here," he told a crowded courtroom, referencing the national media attention surrounding Hook's actions. He paused. "Of all the stupid things I anticipated today, this is not one of them."
After O'Hanlon assured the judge that his clients knew nothing about Hook's filings, Wright agreed not to dismiss the case and lifted a stay on depositions in the case. He also said he would issue another order for Hook to show cause and appeared receptive to a request from Sheppard Mullin's lawyers to get a restraining order against him. The judge added, "I've never seen anything like this."
That's when Hook stood up from among the courtroom of onlookers. Wright fingered for him to approach the bench.
"When did you get here?" he asked.
"I apologize, your honor," Hook replied, stating he had arrived prior to the hearing's start.
Wright then pounded his fist and demanded to know when, as Hook said in his court papers, he had apologized to the court in writing. The judge wanted to know if the emails were part of his litigation strategy or the product of "frustration and anger." Hook replied they were both. Hook refused to back down from his claim that his opposing counsel could not authenticate the emails, prompting Wright to anger.
"This is not the day to be cute," he said, "and I am not the guy."
The judge also asked if Hook continued to insist that Sheppard Mullin's lawyers, by refusing to respond to his settlement demands, were responsible for the language in his emails.
"Not at all, your honor," Hook responded. "This is my fault entirely."
But Hook still maintained that his emails were protected under the litigation privilege and the First Amendment.
"You honestly believe the First Amendment extends to anything?" Wright replied. "You did go to law school, right?"
The judge called Hook's decision to put such language into an email a "rookie mistake." And, the judge said, Hook threatened people. "If that would've happened to me, I'd come looking for you."
At the end of the hearing, the judge told Sheppard Mullin's lawyers to submit the fees and costs they want from Hook. Hook said he would agree to pay them.
"You're going to pay for this," the judge told Hook. "You're going to write a check. That's just the first thing. This is not going to be over."
Calling Hook a "piece of work," the judge ended the hearing by stating, "we're out of here," and motioned for Hook to leave the courtroom, which the lawyer did immediately.
"Sorry, I apologize, your honor," Hook said while leaving.
Read More
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readAm Law 200 Firm to Defend PUMA in Latest Quarrel Over Patented Shoe Technology
Apple Asks Judge to 'Follow the Majority Practice' in Dismissing Patent Dispute Over Night Vision Technology
Who Got the Work: 16 Lawyers Appointed to BioLab Class Action Litigation
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250