I was very disappointed to read the NYLJ's take on the First Department's decision in my disciplinary proceedings. Your article makes a caricature of a very carefully crafted and well-balanced decision.  Particularly unfortunate was your choosing to make one paragraph in a 4-page decision the centerpiece of your story and using tabloid-style language to characterize what you purport to believe was the Court's own view of things.  Indeed, your readers might be interested to know that the Court, among other things, specifically declined to find me guilty of violating Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(f)(3) (intentionally violate any established rule of procedure of a tribunal) for making an unauthorized recording in violation of tribunal rule 22 NYCRR 29.1(a), the rule that prohibits unauthorized recordings in a court.  That the Court did not find me guilty of violating Rule 3.3(f)(3) ought to tell you something.

While it certainly may sell fewer papers and garner fewer clicks, it would have been rather nice from a journalistic point of view had you chosen to devote more attention to the two very large paragraphs stated by the Court in mitigation.  Those two very large paragraphs were given far more weight by the Court in its decision than the one paragraph you chose to dwell so much on.

Finally, I would very respectfully note that the NYLJ is a paper of record.  It is not a tabloid.