Mischief Makers
Perhaps being a judge doesn't have quite the cachet it used to.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can be so careless of what they have worked their whole career for: that is, the transition from being a lawyer to being a judge. Perhaps being a judge doesn’t have quite the cachet it used to (given all the TV judges, whether they are real-life judges, have ever been so, or never were), but the seeming indifference to what the robe conveys astounds me.
One recent example is up in the far reaches of Northern California. The California Commission on Judicial Performance (CCJP) has filed a notice of formal proceedings against Gregory Kreis, a Humboldt County Superior Court judge. (Humboldt County is roughly 300 miles north of San Francisco.) Judge Kreis is charged with “willful misconduct in office, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The notice alleges 19 separate charges of judicial misconduct.
The panoply of charges range from stupid, offensive behavior at a social gathering to much more serious offenses while presiding over various matters. Alleged misconduct includes having an affair with the court’s family law facilitator (at the time, Kreis was assigned to family law court), suggesting that he would report an attorney to the California State Bar for filing a motion to disqualify him, a failure to recuse himself in certain specified cases, a failure to disclose the existence of certain friendships between the judge and counsel in various cases, using cocaine, making inappropriate comments in court … the list goes on.
Trust The Process: How To Build And Manage Workflows In Law Firms
Kreis faced a primary challenge two days ago and lost to April Van Dyke, a contract defense attorney who won 60% of the vote. Meanwhile, the judge has denied the allegations of drug use, ethics violation, and sexual harassment in his formal response to the CCJP.
The CCJP’s notice in the Kreis case makes interesting reading and provides a cautionary tale for all of us. Antics on the bench can cost you your seat.
Lawyers can create mischief that gets them fired. Even if you think that the judicial officer is not worth the robe she is wearing, it is drummed into us from our very first day in law school that judges are to be treated with respect, no matter what under-the-breath mutterings are made. Ben Aderholt obviously didn’t get the lesson, as he took a judge to task, with the first insult in a letter to her being the use of her first name. The conduct proceeded downhill from there. “Who do you think you are?” may be an appropriate game show question, but asking the judge that question is bound to get the lawyer in trouble, and it did. How do you spell fired? What made it even worse was that the letter was written on the firm’s letterhead. Whoops. How do you explain that faux pas to future interviewing partners and corporate counsel?
Remember when we were just starting to practice and we heard the term “incorporation by reference,” which was a handy dandy way to avoid having to recite whatever document or pleading needed to be included, but was too lengthy? So, we incorporated by reference. Mark Perry, a Biglaw lawyer, got benchslapped for doing exactly that. He tried to circumvent the page limitation by incorporating by reference 2,000 words from another document. Too clever by half? The Federal Circuit thought so.
Sponsored
How To Build And Manage Your Law Firm Rate Sheet
How Savvy Lawyers Build Their Law Firm Rate Sheet
A Law Firm Checklist For Successful Transaction Management
Not All Legal AI Is Created Equal
Don’t try this in your case.
And another cautionary tale: if your opposing counsel is your former employer who terminated you for “work-related issues,” whatever you do, don’t treat that former employer (aka now opposing counsel) like a jerk, that is, if you value your law license.
Brian Manookian’s harassment included intimidating, demeaning, embarrassing, and harassing communications to opposing counsel and others. As one example, when Manookian and his partner learned that opposing counsel in a case had died, that same day Manookian filed a motion for default judgment. Nice, huh? The harassment targeted family members of opposing counsel and prompted fears for their safety, and it did not cease, even when there was new opposing counsel.
In disciplinary proceedings, a Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility hearing panel found that the purpose of the communications was to intimidate opposing counsel in order to gain an unfair advantage in pending litigation. The Tennessee Supreme Court in its almost 80-page opinion was so appalled by Manookian’s behavior that it decided that only disbarment would be the proper remedy. “Victimizing the families of opposing counsel and causing concern for their well-being and safety is an especially grave offense and a profound dishonor as a lawyer.”
By the way, has anyone else noticed that there are more incidents about male judges and male lawyers misbehaving than of women judges and lawyers? Just asking.
Sponsored
Not All Legal AI Is Created Equal
Trust The Process: How To Build And Manage Workflows In Law Firms
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at [email protected].
