Lawyer Faces Admonition for 'In My Pocket' Remarks About Prosecutor, His Ex-Partner
The District XA Ethics Committee said Willliam Laufer of Laufer, Dalena, Cadicina, Jensen & Bradley violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct when he made the remarks about Morris County Prosecutor Fredric Knapp to an adversary.
February 23, 2018 at 04:39 PM
5 minute read
A local attorney ethics panel has recommended that a Morristown matrimonial litigator be admonished for disparaging remarks he made about his former law partner, who now is the Morris County prosecutor.
The District XA Ethics Committee (DEC) said Willliam Laufer of Laufer, Dalena, Cadicina, Jensen & Bradley violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct when he made the remarks about Morris County Prosecutor Fredric Knapp to an adversary, in the courtroom during a break in a domestic violence hearing.
The committee, in its recommendation to the state Office of Attorney Ethics, said Laufer violated R.P.C. 8.4(d), for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and R.P.C. 8.4(e), for insinuating that he had the power to influence a government official.
The committee said Laufer should be cleared of a third charge under R.P.C. 8.4(c), saying there was no evidence his conduct amounted to dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
The state Supreme Court's Disciplinary Review Board will ultimately determine whether the committee's recommendations should be upheld.
The DEC made its disciplinary recommendation to the OAE in a letter dated Dec. 27 and marked as received by the OAE on Jan. 19. It said there was no “clear and convincing evidence” that Laufer knowingly engaged in inappropriate behavior. “The dispute between the parties is over respondent's intent,” the committee said.
Nevertheless, the committee said, there is no dispute that Laufer made the remarks at issue. The committee based its recommendation on the DRB's 2013 ruling in In re Van Syoc, in which an attorney, using a phrase identical to that of Laufer, claimed he had a judge “in my pocket.”
In a separate report filed with the OAE last December, the committee said it “does not have a 'firm belief or conviction' that respondent engaged in intentional misconduct,” but added that there did not have to be a finding of intent.
“Without any precedent, we will not require intent to prove a violation,” the committee said.
According to the complaint filed by the OAE, the remarks were made during a Dec. 1, 2014, hearing before Morris County Superior Court Judge Louis Sceusi. Laufer represented a woman, identified as L.I., in a domestic violence matter. The husband, identified as T.I., was represented by Angelo Sarno of the Hackensack office of Snyder Sarno D'Aniello, Maceri & da Costa.
L.I. had alleged that T.I. improperly obtained a videotape that was admitted into evidence. Laufer told Sceusi he was going to refer the matter to the prosecutor's office for investigation.
During a recess, Sarno asked Laufer whether Knapp had been his former law partner, the OAE complaint said.
Laufer, the complaint said, acknowledged that Knapp was his former partner, and that Knapp was “in my pocket.”
“He does whatever I ask he does, 20 years he is my partner,” the complaint quotes Laufer as saying.
Laufer, according to the complaint, said he was responsible for obtaining Knapp's appointment and added that he “didn't want [Knapp] around any more” because he was not “very productive.”
The conversation was picked up by the courtroom's recording system, and was overheard by T.I., who later requested and obtained a copy of the recording, the complaint said.
The hearing resumed on June 16, 2015. T.I. read portions of the recording into the record and said he feared being harassed and arrested.
Sarno requested that Knapp recuse himself from the investigation, and Sceusi said he would leave that decision to Knapp, the complaint said.
After learning of Laufer's statements through a newspaper report, the complaint said, the prosecutor's office issued a statement saying Laufer's allegations were “totally and completely false.”
Knapp then referred the matter to the OAE.
During hearings before the committee, Laufer acknowledged making the remarks but insisted they were not made seriously.
“It was bad humor,” Laufer told the committee, composed of attorney members Gregory Bevelock and Kevin J. O'Connor, and public member Janet Detaranto. “But it was humor.”
The panel said that in the Van Syoc case, “there was no discussion or requirement that intent be proved; rather, the focus was on the fact that the statements—which on their face undermined the integrity of and public confidence in the judicial system—were made in front of respondent's clients and the court reporter.”
The statements ended up directly affecting a court proceeding, the panel noted, and “although Respondent did not cause his statements to be published in the newspaper, the fact of the matter is that they were published, thereby further undermining the public's confidence in the judicial system.”
On Feb. 23, Laufer referred a request for comment to his attorney, Lawrence Cohen of Lavery, Selvaggi, Abromitis & Cohen in Hackettstown, who said, ”There was no finding of intent. This was a joke. This was a facetious conversation between two attorneys who knew each other.”
The committee's findings and recommendations, he said, “set a kind of dangerous precedent to other lawyers.”
“You have to be very careful of what you say, no matter what the setting,” Cohen said.
If the DRB does decide to accept the committee's recommendation for admonishment, Laufer will accept that decision, Cohen said.
“It's the lowest form of possible discipline,” Cohen said.
The DEC said there were substantial mitigating factors, including Laufer's lack of any prior disciplinary issues, his services as a former president of the Morris County Bar Association, being a founding member of the Morris County Bar Foundation, and his volunteer work with local charities.
Knapp, who took office in 2014 after being nominated by former Gov. Chris Christie, declined to comment since the matter is still pending.
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 AllAppellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
4 minute readChiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
5 minute readOn the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
7 minute read'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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