Biglaw Partner Very, Very Sorry For Inappropriate Tweets

At least it seems clear this Biglaw partner has learned his lesson.

Remember the recent story about Vincent P. (Trace) Schmeltz III (@traceschmeltz)? He’s the partner over at Barnes & Thornburg that got in trouble for flouting the court’s rules about use of his cell phone and camera during the trial of spoofer Michael Coscia. You see, the trial judge had a pretty clear rule against text-based technology and the use of cameras, yet Schmeltz was tweeting out pictures of the government’s evidence mid-trial.

Tut-tut, Trace.

Though he pulled down the offending Tweets, Schmeltz still found himself in hot water. Specifically, Chief Judge Rubén Castillo issued an order to show cause as to why Schmeltz should not be sanctioned for violating court rules. Yesterday, there was a hearing in front of Judge Castillo to give Schmeltz an opportunity to speak on the issue.

Professional responsibility and legal ethics attorney Trisha Rich of Holland & Knight attended the hearing and reported back to Above the Law her impressions of the proceeding.

Chief Judge Castillo made it clear that no sanction would be imposed at yesterday’s hearing, indeed, the full executive committee of the court will be deciding Schmeltz’s fate. The executive committee will next be discussing the case on December 8th, and in the course of the hearing, Judge Castillo invited Schmeltz to offer up a suggested sanction by the 4th.

Represented by William Conlon of Sidley, Schmeltz appeared chastised by the situation he’d created for himself. Conlon made a statement before that court on behalf of his client and indicated that his client was very sorry and embarrassed over the mess he’d made. He said his client had never been sanctioned before and self=reported the incident to the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission and the D.C. bar where Schmeltz is admitted. Conlon also said that Schmeltz had written letters of apology to both Judge Harry D. Leinenweber (the trial judge in the underlying Coscia case) and his firm.

Schmeltz was next to give a statement, and he continued the mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa theme. His comments began with an acknowledgement that he made it clear he regrets his actions in the courtroom and provided some justifications for said actions. The Cascia case was one that was relevant to his area of practice and Schmeltz said that he sent the Tweets because he wanted to give context to the evidence the government was showing.

Sponsored

Chief Judge Castillo pushed back on Schmeltz on this issue and seemed very interested to know if there was a commercial purpose to the Tweets. Schmeltz generally denied that there was a business purpose to the Tweets or that the platform leads to many new clients, despite the fact the several traders (AKA potential clients) follow him on Twitter. Schmeltz stuck to the response that the Tweets were designed to educate people and said that he is where he is in life because of his intellectual curiosity.

Overall, Trisha Rich’s impression was that Schmeltz was apologetic and contrite. As a professional responsibility lawyer, Rich has seen it all and said, “Lawyers do dumber things. There’s no shortage of the number of ways lawyers can get themselves in trouble. This was an obvious rule violation but he [Schmeltz] owns up to it.”

It’s also important to remember this is more than a “gotcha” moment for Schmeltz. As Rich pointed out, the offending Tweets were about an ongoing criminal matter — there is still post-trial briefing and an appeal — and these kinds of issues can affect the integrity of the process.

At least it seems clear Schmeltz has learned his lesson.

Sponsored