They call it footnote 9 in Guilderland. Yes, Guilderland, but if you voted the Libertarian Party line in the last New York State election, then it might mean something to you as well. From the Times-Union :
The issue stems from an April 2008 query to the committee by Albany County Judge Thomas Breslin, the supervising criminal court judge in New York’s Third Judicial District.
[Warren] Redlich had been sworn in as a Town Board member three months earlier, raising concerns from the district attorney’s office and town attorney that his continued handling of cases originating in Guilderland created an appearance of a conflict.
The concerns included that the Town Board has disciplinary and budgetary power over the police department and court staff and appoints the town attorney, who serves as prosecutor in traffic court.
Breslin’s letter triggered a confidential February 2009 letter of caution to Redlich from the committee, informing him that not only did his law firm have a conflict of interest but also that the firm’s website contained statements that were “misleading, oversimplifications and exaggerations.”
Now what reason would that be not to hype yourself on your website, lest it somehow find its way into the hands of the disciplinary committee? Not only did Warren Redlich have a website, but a blog as well, though it transformed from blog to, well, something else when he ran for Governor on the Libertarian Party line last election, where he got more than 48,000 votes.
Not a bad showing, especially for a Republican, but he lost. And he returned to both Guilderland and the courthouse trenches, which presented a bit of a problem for the Guilderland town board member because the conflict of interest. Warren wasn’t going to stand idly by while his livelihood was taken away, so he sued.
A judge has dismissed a federal lawsuit filed by Guilderland Town Board member Warren Redlich challenging a state attorney-watchdog panel’s finding that he cannot practice law in a court whose budget he oversees.
The case thrust Redlich, a Republican and one of the region’s most colorful political figures, into direct conflict with U.S. District Judge Gary L. Sharpe, a no-nonsense jurist who has shown an unwillingness to suffer lawyers and defendants who cross him.
Buried within Judge Sharpe’s decision is footnote 9.
“Mr. Redlich continues to display an apparent disregard for the time and resources that this court must expend in interpreting his poorly-drafted pleadings and analyzing his sloppily-constructed and thinly-researched memoranda,” wrote Sharpe, who presided over the corruption trial of former state Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno.
“Whether this disregard stems from laziness, incompetence, bad faith, or some combination thereof,” Sharpe continued, “Mr. Redlich should be mindful in drafting future submissions that the court’s patience has worn thin.”
It was the smack heard around Guilderland. I can feel the sting here. Just brutal.
But no Republican cum Libertarian (for the uninitiated, the Libertarian Party in New York isn’t really libertarian, but pretty much a cash and carry proposition) would such a bench slap without retort:
“You can read the memorandum I submitted, and I cited more cases than he did,” Redlich said of Sharpe’s decision…
Well, no, Warren. The winner isn’t the guy who cites more cases. At least not outside of Guilderland.
There’s a price to be paid by those who run for office. Even lawyers. That price is not to engage in conduct that involves inherent conflict of interest, such as having cops and judges whose budgets, salaries and benefits are dependent upon your vote. I fully accept Warren’s statement that he would never use his vote on the town board to curry favor or as a threat. So what? It smells bad, and that’s all it takes to create the appearance of impropriety. Lawyers can’t do that.
I similarly realize that it’s tough to maintain a criminal law practice in the hinterlands. They dont commit enough serious crimes. Sure, they have their share of drunk driving and cow-tipping cases, but it’s hard to maintain a decent lifestyle on that. And even when they do commit murder, they either can’t afford a lawyer or go pro se. No, it’s not easy up there.
Still, the conflict of interest rules apply, even when it means you can’t represent defendants in your own town. This is the sort of thing that one ought to consider before running for office, no matter how strongly one wishes to serve his neighbors, or how many cases one can cite in a string.
And frankly, Warren, it really wasn’t a good idea to use your mother as the plaintiff in your federal action to claim a deprivation of Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. Aside from the right not being absolute, your mom hadn’t been charged with anything. Yet.
H/T David Giacalone
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tipping a cow less than 20% for good service is a crime. Otherwise, we Dairy Queen tippers are not of the criminal ilk.
Where to start …
1. My mother does have a pending case in Guilderland, a parking ticket.
2. I have recused myself from every town board decision that involved any police officer involved in any case my office touched.
3. There is a NYSBA ethics opinion that says a city councilman can appear in the city court of that city. There is no NYSBA opinion that says otherwise.
4. All my Guilderland cases are transferred to Bethlehem. Where’s the conflict?
5. What Judge Sharpe refused to address is the balancing – does the court’s administrative convenience (not having to transfer cases) outweigh our clients’ 6th Amendment rights?
I’m disappointed in you, that you wrote this without contacting me first. And that you wrote this without addressing the accusation that my website is misleading, etc. You know my website is accurate, helpful, etc. Why not say so?
I’m happy to let you say as much as you would like in your defense, Warren, but your mother has a parking ticket? Come on.
I have no clue what the disciplinary committee found problematic with your website, or whether it’s been changed since. Want to provide me with a copy of the decision? I will happily post it. Without that, however, how and why would you expect me to dispute their conclusions is unclear? Because we’re part of the brotherhood? You know better than that.
I know your website accurate? I’ve never looked at your website, Warren, so how in the world would I know such a thing? What I do know is that your blog was created solely for marketing purposes, and that your purpose for being online is to get business. While that’s not my way, it’s not necessarily wrong, but it also serves to suggest that your interest in getting business may compromise accuracy, as is true for many lawyers.
And in the meantime, it serves as a useful reminder to all those whose websites violate the disciplinary rules that they may well find themselves subject to scrutiny, an important point.
What am I missing here?
I’m familiar with no principle that requires a criminal defense attorney to avoid representing clients if it appears that he might intimidate the opposition because of his connections. Of course, his position might cause the prosecutors or judges to recuse themselves, but why the defense attorney?
It is analogous to a defense attorney who contributes $5,000 to a judge’s campaign. Maybe the judge needs to disclose it or recuse herself, but certainly the defense attorney doesn’t need to refer the case to someone else.
And of course, his position as a criminal defense attorney might cause him problems as an elected official, and recuse himself in many cases. But here again, that is because his duty there is to the voters as an elected official. He has no similar duty as a criminal defense lawyer.
Maybe he should be disciplined for filing shitty pleadings, or prosecuted for violating conflict laws as an elected official, but what is he doing wrong as it relates to representing clients?
When I said: “recuse himself in many cases” above, I meant voting situations.
Wow. Talk about completely missing the point. Elected officials are commonly precluded from practicing in courts under their control. The problem isn’t that he’s a criminal defense lawyer, but that he’s an elected official with budgetary and supervisory oversight. This is a fundamental principle, whether you’re familiar with it or not.
And no, it isn’t analogous to contributing to a judge’s campaign, although in New York, a new rule has just issued that an attorney who contributes $2500 to a judge’s campaign cannot appear before him.
Interesting that you “know … [my] blog was created solely for marketing purposes” and yet you’ve never looked at my website.
Maybe you should actually take a look at my websites and blogs before you judge me.
If you actually looked at my law firm website (redlichlaw -dot- com) you might end up agreeing with me – my website is accurate, helpful and informative.
And if you compared it to the many other lawyer websites out there, you might wonder why they chose to go after my website.
But that’s only if you care about the truth, rather than taking a cheap shot at me without doing any of your own research.
I also don’t get your problem with my mother’s parking ticket. Even if that was troubling for some bizarre reason, I also had another pro bono client with a DWI.
What’s your opinion on the balance between their Sixth Amendment right to counsel vs. the administrative inconvenience of the Guilderland Town Court transferring a case to the Bethlehem Town Court? Don’t you think that a fundamental constitutional right trumps trivial administrative interests?
How do I know your blog was “solely for marketing purposes?” Because you told me that Warren when you wanted me to exchange links with you. I couldn’t care less about your blog or your website. Did you forget what you told me? It doesn’t matter what’s there now, but what was there when they found against you. Do you think people are so stupid that they won’t realize this?
Nice try at spinning Warren, I offered you the a chance to defend yourself with substance and came back empty. That’s that.
From NYSBA Ethics Opinion 798:
“11. Where the lawyer/legislator is a partner or associate of a law firm (including being associated as an “of counsel” lawyer) but does not undertake representations involving questioning of police or taking positions adverse to district attorneys, and does not undertake representations that might conflict with his or her duties as a public official (e.g., lobbying for or against matters being considered by the legislature), we believe the other lawyers in the lawyer/legislator’s firm should not be per se disqualified from undertaking representations that the lawyer/legislator cannot undertake. A representation by another lawyer in the firm may, however, involve facts and circumstances where the lawyer/legislator’s disqualification should be imputed to everyone in the firm.”
This is the issue that the Committee, the Third Department, and Judge Sharpe refused to address. I did not appear personally in any of these cases. Associates in my firm were responsible for them and I was screened.
The relevant circumstances are that I’m in the minority on our town board and I recuse myself from disciplinary matters and promotions involving police officers who might be involved in my cases.
This addresses your comment: “That price is not to engage in conduct that involves inherent conflict of interest, such as having cops and judges whose budgets, salaries and benefits are dependent upon your vote.”
I did not tell you something that is not true. Anyone can read my blogs and quickly figure out they are not “solely” for marketing purposes.
One of my top blog posts is about HP Customer Service. I don’t see how that could be even remotely connected to marketing.
As for substance, your silence on the importance of the Sixth Amendment is deafening.
Sigh. You really want to go through this inch by inch? Okay.
First, as you ought to know, the NYSBA Ethics Opinion is voluntary, non-binding. It’s of no legal consequence. Second, it applies to county legislators only. You are not a county legislator, nor is a town board member analogous to a county legislator as town board members are hybrids in the executive/legislative function, whereas county legislators are purely legislative. Third, I believe you have one associate, yet use the plural to suggest you have a bigger firm than you do, and that you aremore disconnected from the representation than you are. Fourth, even with one associate, you are the sole owner, meaning that you have exclusive control over, and benefit of, revenues. Fifth, your selection of paragraph 11 ignores the rest of the opinion. Here’s the official digest:
Sixth, the opinion states that it isn’t a per se disqualification of others in the firm. It does not say that your disqualification should not be imputed to others. And up to now, mind you, you’ve been arguing against your disqualification, not the disqualification of the person who works under your exclusive control. This opinion clearly states that you must be disqualified.
Being in the minority on your town board is completely irrelevent. Recusing yourself from any particular vote in the past is completely irrelevent. Seriously, it’s unfathomable that you can’t grasp why this is. You vote on the budget. Even if you never voted on anything relating to the police, courts and prosecutors, you would still give the appearance to potential clients of selling influence.
So the issue isn’t that the Committee (whose decision you still haven’t offered), the Third Department and Judge Sharpe did “refuse to address” your argument. Your argument is facially wrong. Are you the only one unable to see this? If so, it reflects very poorly on your competency, Warren. And the more you argue, the clearer it becomes why Judge Sharpe nailed you to the wall.
Incorrect on so many levels. My firm has two associates. We had three when all this started.
I never argued in the case that “I” should be allowed to appear. It has always been about my firm, not me.
Being in the minority and recusing myself from relevant votes is highly relevant because it relates to whether “members of the public are likely to suspect [my] influence will have an effect on the prosecution of the case.”
Still waiting for your opinion on the Sixth Amendment.
Your first point is circular and ridiculous. As for your Sixth Amendment argument, what apparently is obvious to any criminal defense lawyer apparently isn’t obvious to you. So since you insist.
There is no issue raised as to Sixth Amendment (and by the way, it’s Article I, §6 under the New York State Constitution, as your appearance in state court doesn’t implicate federal constitutional rights) right to counsel. No one said defendants in Guilderland Town Court aren’t allowed to be represented. This is a fundamental right.
Your issue is the right to counsel of choice (meaning you, or as you are now spinning it, your associate[s] who work under your control), which is subject to a wealth of qualifications, ranging from ability to pay to inchoate conflicts of interest. There is no fundamental right to counsel of choice, and you, and no one else, created a conflict when you decided to run for town board. You, and no one else, created the basis for disqualification from practicing before the court, with the police, with the prosecutor, subject to your control. You, and no one else, presumably knew when you ran for office that there would be consequences for doing so. Did you even think about it when you ran?
Nor is the process to remove a case to a neighboring court applicable. That process applies by law only when the town court judge is conflicted, not when a lawyer is disqualified. You aren’t any more entitled to go judge shopping than anyone else. Nor does this resolve the problem with police or prosecutor, who are under town board control. Nor does this address the impropriety of clients who believe that retaining a town board member buys them undue influence.
Is this less deafening?
Read your own prior comments, Warren, You never mentioned associates until now. It was all about you. Regardless, it’s inconsequential, as you’re still wrong.
Your recusal in the past has nothing to do with your recusal in the future. You can chose to stop recusing yourself, and either vote or force someone to bring an Article 78 to nullify your vote. Then there is the budget vote. Even if you somehow recused yourself from every vote that directly affected the court, the police and the prosecutor, you would still vote on the budget which inherently implicates all these functions.
Worse still, your recusal (whether in the past, in the future or in any particular instane) has nothing to do with the appearance of having influence on a case to members of the public. Your inability to grasp this is shocking.
Warren, when this started, I had no idea whether the disciplinary committee, the Appellate Division, Third Department and United States District Judge Sharpe had overstated your issues in their various opinions. By your comments, you’ve dug yourself so deep into a hole that I see no possible recovery.
I’m cutting you off for your own sake, and urge you to seriously consider why so many people, including me, disagree so strongly and clearly with you. I’m not your enemy, and our practices don’t intersect at all, so I couldn’t care less whether you defend people in Guilderland or not, and yet there is no issue whatsoever here. Pause and give that some thought.