Lawyer of the Day: Charlene Morisseau
Former DLA Piper associate Charlene Morisseau isn't just our Lawyer of the Day. This high-powered litigatrix -- a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and a former editor of the Harvard Law Review -- should be hailed as a heroine by Biglaw associates everywhere.
From a most engaging article by Anthony Lin, in the New York Law Journal:
A Manhattan federal judge has thrown out a race discrimination suit brought against DLA Piper by a former associate who claimed the firm's New York office was a hostile work environment.Charlene Morisseau, a 2001 graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was a law review editor, joined DLA Piper as a litigation associate in April 2003 but was asked to leave less than a year later. In a lawsuit filed last year, Ms. Morisseau, who is black, claimed her firing was retaliation for complaints she had made about discriminatory treatment.
She requested almost $250 million in damages from the firm and the 11 partners she individually named in the suit.
Now, we're all in favor of giving associates more money. But $250 million may be a bit much, even for a Harvard Law grad. It's about 90 percent of DLA Piper's total firm profits for 2006 ($280 million).
But it looks like Morisseau won't be seeing a dime:
Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan granted summary judgment to the firm Monday, finding that DLA Piper had put forth a "legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination.""Here, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that plaintiff did not perform in a manner satisfactory to Piper notwithstanding her academic credentials," the judge wrote. "She was a confrontational, stubborn, and insubordinate employee in an environment in which professional personal relations, flexibility and a willingness to accept supervision were essential."
Now we've reached the good part. Here's why Charlene Morisseau should be every associate's idol:
[I]n court filings, DLA Piper denied treating Ms. Morisseau differently and said the firm had taken action because the ex-associate had exhibited a pattern of unacceptable behavior, including yelling at partners and throwing one out of her office.The firm said Ms. Morisseau ordered former partner Marilla Ochis to "back up" out of her office after Ms. Ochis had come to discuss an e-mail exchange Ms. Morisseau had apparently taken offense to.
Have you ever fantasized about telling off your partner oppressors? Well, Charlene Morisseau has lived your dream -- and then some.
Read the rest, after the jump.
Despite being a mere associate, Morisseau was positively diva-licious, according to DLA Piper's allegations in defending the suit:
According to the firm, Ms. Morisseau initially refused an assignment relating to the Victim Compensation Fund by [DLA Piper partner Douglas] Rappaport and later raised her voice at him in a hallway confrontation over that assignment.Ms. Morisseau was also allegedly rude to partner Heidi Levine, her designated mentor. In one instance, the firm said, Ms. Morisseau did not respond to a hello by Ms. Levine and, when the partner began to ask a question, the associate put her hand up in a stopping motion and said, "Heidi, goodbye."
Talk to the hand! Quips a tipster: "She sounds like a cast member from Boston Legal."
But don't think Charlene Morisseau -- who was a year ahead of us in college, and something of a campus rabble-rouser back then -- lashes out only at Biglaw partners. Stephen Bright, described by another tipster as the "saintly death penalty lawyer," has also felt her wrath. He's another former employer who's being sued by Morisseau:
After graduating from Harvard Law, Ms. Morisseau initially worked for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the group led by well-known death penalty appellate lawyer Stephen B. Bright.In an affidavit Mr. Bright submitted for Ms. Morisseau's New York bar application, he said she "appears unable to separate reality and fantasy" and detailed "vicious attacks" and "false allegations of outrageous conduct" she had made against many of the Center's lawyers and staff, all while "making virtually no contribution to the Center's work in the eight months she was here."
"All this reflects very poorly on the professional qualifications of Morisseau to practice law," Mr. Bright wrote in his September 2004 affidavit. The Southern Center is also seeking summary judgment against Ms. Morisseau.
Ah, so that's why they ask for affidavits from former employers when deciding whether to admit you to the bar. Surely the concept of "character and fitness" embraces the ability "to separate reality and fantasy."
We wonder how Charlene Morisseau won admission, after a prominent member of the bar described her as Steve Bright did. But we're glad that she got admitted. The legal profession is all the richer and more colorful for her outsized presence.
'Legitimate' Reasons for Firing, Judge Finds In Rejecting Race Bias Suit Against DLA Piper [New York Law Journal]
(231) Comments
WOW...
I like this line
This profession is all the richer and more colorful for her outsized presence.
and first! finally finally finally did i make it?
That bitch is 100% crazy.
lol, she gave a partner the 'talk to the hand' sign and told her "hello goodbye".
"back up out my office"
she sounds like a total fucking lunatic.
"Heidi, goodbye."
LOVE it. My new favorite saying.
*yawn
Who cares? I thought this was a gossip blog. Hell, anyone can re-post articles from www.law.com.
I'm waiting for the poster who says that Lat always selects the stories about the crazy black associate/student/whatever.
Lat,
That picture is gross and totally inappropriate for work. What if someone walks into my office???
*yawn
Who cares? I thought this was a gossip blog. Hell, anyone can re-post articles from www.law.com.
This should be good for a comment clusterfuck though.
maybe she'd be better off in a profession that doesn't require interpersonal skills.
that aside, though...her antics are indeed hilarious.
The "HARVARD" attitude in its worst form. I actually feel bad for her, its a shame when the only thing holding a person back is not their ability, but their attitude.
Well, can't say you aren't consistent Lat . . .
3:19, 3:21, way to each be redundant.
What does Frat Stud have to say all about this?
Let me guess...
This is outrageous... this woman is a victim... and all they can do is point out a few minor character assassinations?!
Lat, just when I thought you couldn't feed us more of a garbage post, you put this up and....TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!
all the more colorful? was that on purpose?
Harvard and frivolous discrimination lawsuits were my safeties.
Oh no you di'int girlfriend! you best back up out my office cause I don't even play dat!
She needs to be a solo practicioner. Either she's looney or the firm plays exceptional offense.
El Dookie says partners are all $hitheads and deserve the treatment they received at the hands of Ms. Harvard Law
Anyone get any goodies from their SA firm today...? I'm still waiting.
booyah...speak to the hand, cause the face ain't listening!
Audience member Charlene Morisseau '95 chastised Harvard's Black faculty members for failing to act as role models for Black students, and for not responding to Mansfield's comments.
"Where are the minority faculty when we need them?" Morisseau asked. "I should not have to feel alone when I'm fighting these battles."
booyah...speak to the hand, cause the face ain't listening!
How come every white lawyer is scared of a militant or empowered black woman? Look at all you weakling white boys posting nonsense about this brave soul!
You should be ashamed of yourself, you covert KKK MOFOs
booyah...speak to the hand, cause the face ain't listening!
El Dookie says partners are all $hitheads and deserve the treatment they received at the hands of Ms. Harvard Law
Firm gifts update anyone?
3:29: Cheapshot, what's "Harvard" about being crazy rude to partners? While ambitious, I'd say we're a risk-averse group and this behavior is definitely not "Harvard"-like.
a modern day lynching... good job LAT. you are a piece of work
a modern day lynching... good job LAT. you are a piece of work
Seriously, Lat...take down the pic. It is NSFW.
a modern day lynching... good job LAT. you are a piece of work
Charlene Morisseau, President of the Black Law Students Association, moved the crowd by recalling how her 17 year old brother had been unfairly arrested and bruised by the police; her family was told to not bother filing charges because no one would ever believe her brother’s story.
kroners to krispy kremes she made that whole thing up.
a modern day lynching... good job LAT. you are a piece of work
a modern day lynching... good job LAT. you are a piece of work
a modern day lynching... good job LAT. you are a piece of work
El Dookie says she should go work for AlLen Isaac. El Dookie hears that he can be pretty demanding with certain jobs. El Dookie wants to see her turn down that kind of work.
El Dookie says she should go work for Allen Isaac. El Dookie hears that he can be pretty demanding with certain jobs. El Dookie wants to see her turn down that kind of work.
hahah stupid is as stupid does.
i hear her intellectual ability is not on harvard level. infer the rest on your own.
El Dookie says she should go work for Allen Isaac. El Dookie hears that he can be pretty demanding with certain jobs. El Dookie wants to see her turn down that kind of work.
hahah stupid is as stupid does.
i hear her intellectual ability is not on harvard level. infer the rest on your own.
how did she get admitted to the bar?
affirmative action in action
That lady is crazy. I hate when people act like complete psychopaths and when they get fired for being said psychopath they play the race card. And 250 million in damages? Please...
If that comment about Stephen Bright is true, could someone please explain to me how she got admitted to the bar? Yikes. I guess I should chill out about my NY Bar Application. Seems anyone can get in.
I'm waiting for the poster who says that Lat always selects the stories about the crazy black associate/student/whatever.
Posted by: transfer | December 7, 2007 03:27 PM
__________________________________
But thank god we didn't have to wait for you or the rest of the race-baiting xoxo crew! (i.e., she passed the bar through "affirmative action"). Lat, you are a treasure . . .
It's unfortunate that her high end education did not teach her how to behave in a high end job.
It's pretty incredible that she got admitted anyway.
Yale would never produce such a specimen.
There's nothing "strong" about this woman. Only the weak behave that way. See also, babydicked partners who act the same way toward associates.
a high tech lynching.... clarence thomas weeps
They already have. Clarence ring a bell?
Clarence is not abrasive.
Let Harvard have their football and psychotic race-card playing, talk to the hand signaling, 'hello goodbye' 'back up out my office' saying graduates, Yale will always be #1 in the art of gentlemenly club life.
Harvard Law Review to DLA Piper?!?!? I guess all the other firms realized she was a crazy b!+%h during the interviews. Is DLA that dumb or did the try to take a risk with her?
DLA? What's a DLA?
Clearly she is a ninja, a partner would know better than to confront a pirate. ARGHHHH!
It didn't say Harvard Law Review, it said editor of a Harvard law review, which could be any of them.
And she wasn't higher than just editor, not even a board position.
4:03, passing the bar and being admitted to the bar are two separate things
Lat - You, sir, have the boorish manners of a Yalie. But I guess that's what the blog needs right now.
There's no racism here: the woman is f-ing nuts and deserves to be ridiculed out of town.
It didn't say Harvard Law Review, it said editor of a law review, which could be any of them.
And she wasn't higher than just editor, not even a board position.
I'm tired of all these Motherfucking fake FRAT STUDS pretending to be the Motherfucking real FRAT STUD
she needs to be on anti-psychotics
She's had litigation experience pro se before: http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&jurisdictionID=18&searchArea=&searchText=notes&searchStartDate=&searchEndDate=&searchLogic=and&searchDisplayNum=30&searchType=Search&page=1&docID=74338
Just read the decision. She fired her att'ys the morning of her deposition. The following day, defense counsel made a Rule 35 motion. I love it!
I told you that bitch was crazy.
4:12, 4:13: The judge's decision says "an editor of the Harvard Law Review"...
http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/120707kaplan.pdf
Seems like firm used the tactic of smearing her through stereotypes of black women to defend themselves.
the first 4:03: My thoughts exactly!
thanks 4:18, i had to look up rule 35 but it was well worth it
Well, just goes to show that you have to cultivate respect to gain respect OR you can be overbearing and terrifying as I am. so you ASSOCIATE BITCHES, get the fuck back to work.
4:25: Do you really think so? There must be something to the craziness--1) how often to public interest employers trash their former employees and 2) How often do Harvard Law Review editors end up at DLA Piper? (Hint: not often--I got a V10 firm from HLS without anything close to Law Review on my resume...)
4:25
I think you meant to say:
It seems like the firm used a tactic of smearing her reputation based on stereotypes of black women in its defense.
Of course, that's not the case. She's just crazy and her picture us definitely NSFW.
I would love to go down on the Frat Stud.
I would totally go down on frat guy to get a job. But alas, I don't think he'll go for a guy from a TTT school.
She's fugly y'all...
She was editor of Harvard law review. She's a hell of a lot smarter than all of you idiots.
Yeah, 4:37. She sounds like a genius.
I can't figure out what TTT means. Somebody please fill me in.
Ummm...no shit 4:33...
and she may be smarter than most of us 4:37, but last I checked we had jobs and she doesn't - takes more than smarts to survive dbag...
I can believe DLA lawyers lying to smear this woman, but that bar application affidavit and the fact that she fired her lawyers and proceeded pro se (and clearly was out of her league) make me believe that she did those things.
She definitely got to HLS and Harvard by AA. Dude.
gotta love people assuming that just because this chick is black, any action against her is racist. I hope playin the victim serves you well. keep on keepin on, bitches
Its no real secret that the Harvard Law Review considers the race of applicants as part of their merit selection process. Maybe she thought that all employers would be as concerned with race. Most Biglaw partners care much more about money. She doesn't seem profitable to keep around.
4:25- total douche-bag. everyone knew what the poster meant; stop with the obnoxious corrections. This is not a brief, it's a blog.
where was the confusion with her being on law review-- no other journal is called law review.
I don't know much about DLA Piper-- is it a terrible firm or something? Any chance that people go there because they like it more than firms with better rankings?
gotta love people assuming that just because this chick is black, any action against her is racist. I hope playin the victim serves you well. keep on keepin on, bitches
4:47, DLA is nothing to write home about. And if she obviously doesn't like the people that work there I'm assuming this is one of tyhe few jobs she could get.
AA doesn't stop at admission to HLS. She used AA to get on HLR and then bullied and threatened her way onto the board.
can't someone look and see which law review she was on? THE law review or one of the other ones?
and can't someone be both smart and crazy at the same time?
What does TTT mean?
Seriously, you can't blame AA for the fact that you went to a TTT. Dumbass.
She was on Harvard Law Review. As someone pointed out, there are only other law journals at Harvard, not other law reviews.
TTT=Third Tier Toilet.
It is a divine mystery that people like this are given AA slots at Harvard for college and law school, while good human beings die at the hands of fanatical muslims and superaids in Africa.
Charlene clearly is a better candidate for a staph infection than some poor kid in middle school in Brooklyn.
bob's has fried pickles.
I think she wasn't crazy but rather stupid for her actions and deserved to get fired. So its not a case of every time something bad happening to a black person, someone claims victim.
Yet everytime a black person does something stupid, you guys are so quick to blame AA. Really? So every black person MUST be unbelievably smart or intelligent or otherwise they were an undeserving AA hire.
Some white chick jumps off a pier and no one says "cracker ass cracker" but had she been black, there would've been a million "silly AA person" jokes.
Grow up people. There are MILLIONS of stupid black people, just as there are MILLIONS of stupid white people. The existence of AA won't change either. If there were NO AA at all (a proposal I don't exactly oppose), what excuse would you have then?
In a weird way, you almost justify dumb behavior when you play the AA card (of she acted stupidly, she didn't belong anyway -- NO she just ACTED STUPIDLY).
RACISM... TAKE THIS DOWN OR POST THE IP ADDRESSES OF THESE RASCIST ATTORNEYS THAT FILL MANHATTAN LAW FIRMS!
Assuming any action against her must be racist because she is black is as logical as assuming that she made harvard law review because she is black.
That's what I hate about AA. Not suggesting this is the case for miss attitute, but people assume that every minority who is successful is so because of AA. Although often true, it is not always the case.
If this is all true, this woman obviously has problems. I just don't understand the assumption that just because she's crazy she's an AA case.
When white people are assholes, they're just assholes. When black people are assholes they're stupid assholes? Whatever.
TALK TO THE WRIST CAUSE THE HAND IS PISSED!
Did you ever think that her "crazy" attitude is a product of her environment and a function of her ethnicity? Law firms preach diversity, then fire anyone that does not meet the corporate round hole. Diversity means making allowances for differences -- including differences in interacting with people.
White america is so blinded with rage, and cover-your-ass mentality -- they preach diversity and practice the opposite.
Captain Red-Beard...amen. even a partner is no match for a pirate!
4:47(2) - You're the douche. There were several posts about whether she was on A law review or THE law review, and if she was on THE law review, why did she end up at DLA? Pay attention.
5:11 you have to be joking. firing people who yell at their bosses is hardly anti-diversity, its anti-bitch.
5:11: I don't think confronting your superior (yes, your superior) over an innocuous e-mail has a thing to do with a corporate "round hole." Let's not forget, either, that nobody at the Southern Center for Human Rights could stand her.
If she was that insane with partners, imagine what a nightmare she must've been to staff.
No need to yell.
5:04 et al.: I think the previous posters are adding in a factor. Crazy/stupid black woman _who went to HLS_ = AA case.
I don't agree, btw. I know plenty of complete idiots/psychos who went to T-14 lawschools.
And don't censure/sensor us, asshats. I'll keep posting my ignorant comments FROM my office.
5:11 -
I hope you don't mean to imply that her behavior should have been accepted to promote diversity. If anything, her alleged behavior seems antithetical to diversity initiatives. It seems unlikely that rudely dismissing partners, telling partners that their emails are "extremely unnecessary," and refusing to consider the possibility that criticism might be honest, would promote a free exchange of ideas and a mingling of viewpoints. The behavior described destroys dialog rather than expanding. What do you mean by diversity? If allowing people like her to demean others is part of diversity, than I want no part of it.
She was on the "Harvard Human Rights Journal."
The Spring 1999 edition lists her as general "Editorial Staff" but not as any type of editor.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss12/index.shtml#staff
She had 2 articles published in the Harvard Law Review, but I can't find out if she was a member or not.
http://www.pdsoros.org/publications_list.cfm?start=631&page_no=64&CFNoCache=TRUE
Sorry 5:11, you seem to be full of the same white, liberal, guilt I constantly espouse that while well-meaning is ultimately destructive.
EVERYONE has to conform to a certain degree to be in corporate America. White girls who enjoy wearing low cut, slutty clothes in law school, magically find tame Anne Klein numbers. The goth crowd that may have once had multiple facial piercings in undergrad, magically is now clean-cut and doesn't wear all-black every day.
Similarly, I can't get my hair braided like Allen Iverson and expect people to get treated respectfully or be accepted at work. That doesn't mean there is some RACIST policy at work.
The same goes for manerrisms and attitudes toward work. You can't treat partners like THEY'RE the associates, regardless of what race you are. Believe me, I'd LOVE to yell at partners but as Chris Rock would say "there's a REASON to do anything, hell there's a reason to kick an old man down a flight of stairs...JUST DON'T DO IT..."
And before the grammar police kills me, I KNOW I improperly said I "espouse" instead of what I meant "REFUSE to espouse"
remove the hoods!-
Everyone knows that some African Americans admitted to excellent schools would have gotten in anyway even if race weren't considered. What troubles people is the high statistical liklihood that they wouldn't have been admitted to a school within the same bracket had race not been a factor. Schools don't release data about their students that is disaggregated by race for a reason. Where lawsuits have forced them to disclose the information, the numeric disparity between applicants of different races has been shocking. While it may be distasteful to assume that individuals of particular races lack analytical power equivalent to their classmates as measured by standardized exams and GPAs, its a bet most people would take because the odds of disparity are very high. The people who would be most inclined to wager that an underepresented minority underperformed on standard metrics would probably be under represented minorities who recieved powerful admissions boosts themselves and have at least one data point to extrapolate as to what's really going on.
You are all forgetting that she is OWED the job she has.
I think the nature of her actions lies in the eyes of the beholder. Some white males and females may be put off by a black female asserting herself [you see we get random 'b----' comments thrown around]. In these situations it is possible she can be classified as "yelling" or "confrontational" hence the reports. I wasn't there but we should recognize that a previously held view can influence how we interpret an action.
5:19: Fer Chris'sake, she's on the Harvard Law Review masthead, 2000-2001 board of editors, which actually includes everyone on law review.
While it would have been weird for her go to DLA Piper right out of school, it's not that weird for law review types to go work for people like Stephen Bright. I'm guessing she wound up at DLA because she obviously wasn't getting a reference from Bright and she needed a firm so crimson-deprived it was willing to overlook that.
This quote from the article says it all about her professionalism and stupidity.
"The judge deemed DLA Piper's account of events admitted because Ms. Morisseau, proceeding pro se after firing her lawyers in April, did not timely file a declaration opposing the firm's summary judgment motion, though she had been granted a number of extensions. Instead, Judge Kaplan said he had only belatedly received from Ms. Morisseau via Federal Express "three volumes of purported exhibits" that he said were not authenticated and lacked exhibit tabs or a table of contents.
The judge said he would not consider any further submissions from Ms. Morisseau, who he said had previously "defied court orders, ignored schedules, failed to show up for or obstructed her deposition, and filed frivolous applications."
"She has no claim to any further indulgence," Judge Kaplan wrote in his order in Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 06 Civ. 13255.
The decision will be published Wednesday.
Ms. Morisseau did not return a call seeking comment but she responded to the judge's Monday decision by electronically filing an opposition to DLA Piper's summary judgment motion Tuesday, stating in it that she had sent a hard copy to Judge Kaplan along with the three volumes of documents. The opposition's caption also indicated the forum as U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, rather than the Southern District."
Patrick Bateman: He was into that whole Yale thing.
Donald Kimball: Yale thing?
Patrick Bateman: Yeah, Yale thing.
Donald Kimball: What whole Yale thing?
Patrick Bateman: Well, he was probably a closet homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. That whole Yale thing.
Um yeah...and this is someone that passed the NY state bar exam that all of you were saying was the hardest in the nation...?!?!?
"Ms. Morisseau claimed partners at the firm discriminated against her by treating her differently than they treated white associates. In particular, she claimed partner Douglas Rappaport tried to blame her for a mistake he allegedly made in the course of representing a widow in a proceeding before the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund."
Gee, a partner blaiming his mistake on the associate...even if it is TRUE, that's not discriminatory, partners do that all of the time!
5:41-
Passing the bar is only evidence that she studied for it.
And it takes a lot to be denied on character and fitness grounds in NY.
5:32 you cannot be serious. no associate could get away with this type of behavoir, and she is so deserving of superaids that one of the best human beings in America went out of his way to warn the NY state bar she sucks as a person, is crazy and worthless and should not be permitted to practice law in NY.
Thanks for the voice of reason, Blacks Against AA -- you're spot on.
-- ET!
Shows you how obsessed with race this country is that some of you can't get past the color of her skin.
This has nothing to do with affirmative action, race, or race-based angst. She's just a crazy TTT idiot working for a TTT firm.
To paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes an asshat is just an asshat.
I'm sure Latty Boy never thought this post would descend to a discussion about racism.
The only thing relevant is that she's UNACCEPTABLY FUGLY.
Well, everyone, if her past behavior is any indication, prepare to be sued and have your IP addresses exposed.
"I'm sure Latty Boy never thought this post would descend to a discussion about racism."
Ninja please! You can't be serious. Every time there is a post that involves a black person, it deteriorates into an affirmative action bashing post. Apparently, the oppressed white man has a need to vent.
People v. Charlene Morisseau, 2005KN067427
Decided: August 25, 2006
KINGS COUNTY
Criminal Court
For the Defense: Pro se
Judge Sciarrino
Click here to see Judicial Profile
The defendant, Charlene Morisseau, is charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in violation of New York Penal Law (PL) §195.05. Ms. Morisseau has moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds of the facial insufficiency of the accusatory instrument. In the alternative, Ms. Morisseau has submitted a motion to remove the case from Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, to Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, in the First Department. The People oppose these motions in all respects.
As a procedural matter, this court first holds that it must determine the removal prong of the motion first, because if there are grounds for removal, then this court should not consider the merits of the defendant's motion.
The defendant's motion for removal is based simply on the fact that the alleged incidents occurred in the offices of the Appellate Division Second Department. There are no allegations made as to why this court and this judge should be removed from the case. The Criminal Court of the City of New York, is not under the "administrative jurisdiction" of the Second Department. It is a city-wide court, headed by the Hon. Junita Bing Newton from 100 Centre Street in New York County. While the defendant would have a clear case for removal if this decision was appealed and that appeal worked its way to the Appellate Division, Second Department, the motion to remove the case is at this time without merit and is denied. The Criminal Court Judges of Kings County and in the rest of our city strive to fairly examine every case under the laws of our State and to not see justice in terms of black, white or any of the other colors of the rainbow that is New York.1
Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, this court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Facts
On October 18, 2005, at approximately 4:30 P.M., Charlene Morisseau entered the Clerk's Office of the Appellate Division Second Department with the intention of retrieving a copy of a file. She had already paid the $394.50 the fee that was required for the copying. The file concerned the Character and Fitness Committee of the Second Department's finding that the defendant, who is a Harvard Law School graduate who passed the New York State Bar Exam was unfit to practice law.2 The following facts are in dispute. The defendant claims that while in a discussion with the court's clerk, Mr. Pelzer, stated that the defendant was to pick up the file the day before. Ms. Morisseau claims that when she "peacefully" questioned the clerk's refusal to hand over the documents, she was placed under arrest by court personnel and charged with obstructing governmental administration and disorderly conduct. It should be noted that the defendant had apparently been trying to retrieve her file again after numerous visits to the office. It must also be noted that the defendant was a plaintiff in a civil action in federal court against the Second Department of the Appellate Division..
In opposition, the prosecution claims that while in a discussion between the clerk and the defendant, the court employee attempted to explain the necessary procedures to the defendant. Ms. Morisseau proceeded to become agitated and yelled in a loud voice that she wanted her "fucking file." The Chief Clerk claims that Ms. Morisseau began to scream highly offensive, derogatory names, specifically "cracker" and "white nigger." The clerk claims that the actions of Ms. Morisseau caused the court office to come to a standstill. The clerk notes that when the defendant's described behavior did not cease, several court officers responded, asking the defendant to calm down. When the defendant repeatedly refused to leave without her file, she was placed under arrest. The defendant was ultimately charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (§195.05) and two counts of Disorderly Conduct (PL §240.20[2]) & [3]).
The defendant was arraigned on October 18, 2005, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County. During her arraignment, Judge Richard Allman dismissed the two counts of disorderly conduct for facial insufficiency.
Discussion
(PL) 195.05 reads:
A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function, or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act.
Under PL §195.05, a public servant must be engaged in a "specific action at the time of the physical interference, and not just on duty" (People v. Joseph, 156 Misc 2d 192, 194 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1992]). In Joseph, the court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of section 195.05, "unless it is established that the police were engaged in authorized conduct" (id at 193). The reason for this is "the mens rea of this crime is an intent to frustrate a public servant in the performance of a specific function" (Joseph, 156 Misc 2d at 193). The evidence is facially insufficient to determine whether the public servant, Mr. Pelzer, was in the midst of an official government function or simply in a disagreement with Ms Morisseau over a personal issue, specifically the action filed in federal court by Ms. Moriseau, with Mr. Pelzer as a named respondent.
In addition, PL §195.05 notes that a defendant can obstruct governmental administration in three ways: intimidation, physical force or interference, or any independently unlawful act. The affidavit notes that Ms. Morisseau never moved her body, did not gesture with her hands, did not lean across the counter, and did not move toward the clerk or his officers. The only discrepancy in the facts seems to stem from whether Ms. Morrisseau was shouting racial epithets and the level of noise.
Although the assistant district attorney argues that it was Ms. Morisseau's clear intention was to interfere with an authorized function of the clerk's office, the facts alleged are facially insufficient to make this determination as a matter of law. In People v. Vargas, the named defendant