A California lawyer who faced the ire of a federal judge this week for sending 100 profanity-laced emails to opposing counsel has hired a prominent California attorney to represent him in preparation for potential disciplinary actions.

Christopher Hook, of the Law Offices of Christopher G. Hook in Culver City, has retained Heather Rosing, chairperson of the professional liability department at Klinedinst in San Diego. Rosing, whose work focuses on legal malpractice, is the former vice president of the State Bar of California, and the outgoing president of the California Lawyers Association.

At a sanctions hearing Monday, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright of the Central District of California demanded that Hook resign from the legal profession after reviewing profane and discriminatory emails he wrote to lawyers at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, who represented Allstate Insurance Co. in a homeowner dispute. Among other things, Hook told them to "eat a bowl of dicks" and "pay up fuckface."

"He's hired a good lawyer," said Mark Tuft, of San Francisco's Cooper, White & Cooper, who focuses on legal malpractice.

Hook declined to comment Thursday, and Rosing did not respond to a request for comment.

On Wednesday, Sheppard Mullin's lawyers filed their request for fees, raising their original $6,370 request to $42,581. But that's the least of Hook's potential problems. Wright, of the Central District of California, made it clear Monday that he would do more than impose monetary sanctions against him.

"I am going to do what I can to remove you from this profession," the judge told him. "You're going to write a check. That's just the first thing. This is not going to be over."

Hook, who arrived late to the hearing, did not have a lawyer representing him at the time.

Earlier this month, Wright scheduled the hearing and ordered Hook to show why he should not sanction him and toss his case. That order followed a Nov. 26 ex parte application that Sheppard Mullin filed, with the emails attached, in a lawsuit Hook brought Aug. 13 on behalf of a homeowner couple seeking at least $350,000 in damages to their $3.6 million house.

Legal experts say Wright cannot actually disbar Hook, but he can refer him, and all his emails, to the Central District of California's disciplinary committee and the State Bar of California. Both authorities have the ability to disbar him or take other disciplinary actions.

"The State Bar would clearly investigate this," Tuft said. "Being disbarred by the California State Bar and not licensed to practice in California would have a significant effect to practice in federal court."

Whether those authorities actually disbar him or not is another matter. There are alternative measures, like public or private censure or a temporary suspension of a lawyer's law license.

Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University School of Law, called the large number of emails and the language in them "pretty bad" and "the worst end of the spectrum."

"This is a very angry judge," he said. "You can understand why. I can't say the sanctions he wants are appropriate, and maybe it's excessive, but there is really bad judgment on the part of Mr. Hook to write these emails in the context of a federal litigation. He was a lawyer. He had to expect it would eventually percolate up to the attention of the court."

What Rules Did Hook Break?

At Monday's hearing, Wright made no mention of any specific violation of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. But, according to legal experts, the potential violations include the newly created rule 8.4.1 (a), which says a lawyer shall not "unlawfully harass or unlawfully discriminate against persons on the basis of any protected characteristic." Tuft, who served on the committee that wrote that rule, said it was "probably the most comprehensive anti-discrimination rule in the country." Hook used discriminatory language in the emails, referring to the Sheppard Mullin lawyers as "gay boys," among other epithets.

Rule 8.4(d) also prohibits "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

That, said Gillers, is "behavior that impedes the operation of the work of the court," such as forcing the judge to hold a sanctions hearing.

Sheppard Mullin's lawyers also sought a restraining order against Hook, which Wright granted, after he threatened to "waterboard" their client's employees at depositions, according to the emails. Hook also told Sheppard Mullin partner Peter Klee he would "get fucking tattooed across the face" and "I know where you live," identifying his home address and his wife by name.

Tuft said that opens the door to California's criminal law and, under California's Business and Professions Code, lawyers must uphold the laws of the state. The code, which the bar would consider, also says acts of "moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption" constitute disbarment or suspension.

At the hearing, and in court documents, Hook revealed some mitigating factors, maintaining, for instance, that the litigation privilege and First Amendment protected his emails, which focused on settlement negotiations outside of court. That remark drew a rebuke from the judge.

Gillers agreed that defense might not hold up.

"The point is once you appear in court, you're under the authority of the court," he said. "You're subject to the rules of the court, and those rules can limit your free speech. If you want to be able to say things, don't go to court."

But Tuft said Hook has some First Amendment rights, which he could assert.

Hook, a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law and admitted to practice in California in 2008, also has no record of discipline, which goes in his favor.

And he has the benefit of being in California, which, unlike some other states, does not have rules or statutes specifically addressing profane or vulgar language in the legal profession, Gillers said. New York, for instance, has a rule that says an attorney should not "engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer," and another barring "undignified or discourteous conduct."

Tuft said California does have civility rules, however.

"We have a State Bar code of professional courtesy that is strongly encouraged for lawyers to abide by, and would apply in this case," he said. "I don't know enough to know how it would be enforced, but it certainly is a factor in evaluating the conduct in question."