The ABA Journal recently published Judge tells lawyer . . . the profession doesn’t need him. This is an intriguing tale worthy of attention from a variety of perspectives. The story involves an attorney with an antagonistic attitude and a proclivity for coarse language. The attorney sent emails to opposing counsel that were unprofessional and insulting. So insulting, even the full title of the ABA article is truncated here. I am appalled by the selection of language and the lack of professionalism exhibited. The attorney is fortunate that the trial judge there concluded the incendiary behavior was not the client's but only the attorney's.
I have known lawyers who became incendiary, caustic, and rude. Litigation can be fraught with delay, denial, and deflection seemingly at every turn. The disappointment and frustration of the parties can wear on an attorney. Through the course of litigation and negotiations, lawyers absorb and suffer from a great deal of other people's stress. That can affect us emotionally and even physically. We have to find ways to deal with our stress.
The ABA story involves litigation. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr. Christopher Hook, who apparently practices in Culver City, California, steps from Venice Beach, Marina Del Rey, and the Santa Monica Pier. If you have not visited the area, I recommend it. The plaintiffs are said to have suffered "a water loss that forced them from their home." One of the lawyers in the case contended that it was "a $200,000 dispute." It is not uncommon for attorneys to view cases from different perspectives, or to value them disparately.
Despite that particular estimate or contention, it is alleged that Mr. Hook submitted a "$125 million settlement demand" to the property insurer. When that apparently did not elicit the response that he desired, his demand apparently escalated to "302 million." It is perhaps fair to say that negotiations were less than cordial, at least periodically; some might use other adjectives. Mr. Hooks' emails as quoted in the press are so inappropriate, in the famous words of Doug Neidermeyer, "decorum prohibits listing them here." But, it is fair to say that there appears to have been frustration and stress.
The story has made headlines. You could read of it in The Washington Post, the LA Times, and of course the ABA Journal. It reminded me that Phineas T. Barnum is credited with saying "There is no such thing as bad publicity," but perhaps there are limits to that maxim? There are plenty of opportunities above for the reader to depart these tranquil pages and immerse themselves instead in the alleged vulgarities, insults, threats, and disrespect. Mr. Hook may revel in that publicity.
But, his clients reportedly found themselves in court in December to answer a show cause order. Such orders are really only questions posed in the judicial capacity. Many attorneys take such orders as per se accusatory, or even threatening. While it is entirely possible for one to be so, it is also possible for such an order to simply be the equivalent of the old conversation point "correct me if I'm wrong." It is a method for a judge to impart what she/he perceives and allow the parties to a case to provide contrary evidence or repudiation explanation. Show cause orders are expeditious paths forward in litigation.
These clients, it appears, faced dismissal of their lawsuit against the property insurance company. The language and behavior of counsel was so marked that a judge was considering the ultimate sanction of dismissal. That potential dismissal was foregone only after the clients explained to the judge "that they had no idea that Hook was sending emails" of this demeanor, tenor, and tone. Consider that for a moment. A party's chance to have a day in court, to confront the other side, to put on its evidence, to have its say, could be foreclosed as a sanction in response to bad behavior, low-class language, insults, and threats.
In most instances, the Supreme Court of a state has responsibility for the licensing and discipline of lawyers and constitutional judges. The responsibility for administrative judges may be in the executive branch, but that may not preclude a Court from sharing its perceptions, see Deeply Concerned (November 2019). As the licensing authority, those courts have an obligation to the public and the profession to require both compliance with ethical rules and the aspirations of professionalism.
In general, there is some perception that the Florida Supreme Court has become increasingly focused on both the conduct of attorneys and the deeper need for professionalism. The establishment of the Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism is part of that effort. Also notable, the Court has recently rejected various discipline recommendations regarding attorneys, and delivering more stringent punishment. Some may recall a 2019 case in which a recommended three-year suspension was rejected by the Court, and the attorney was instead disbarred. See Aggressive without Being Obnoxious (August 2019).
Well, in California, it is possible that the alleged author of these hateful emails may have just such an opportunity to address the allegations. The Judge before whom Mr. Hooks was appearing, in that case, was seemingly immune from various arguments and excuses regarding the word choices. Judge Wright was dismissive of Mr. Hook's contention that his comments were protected by the First Amendment. Reportedly, Judge Wright "slammed his hands on the bench" during this hearing "and said he had never seen such behavior."
Judge Wright also noted the contention that Mr. Hooks had apologized for his behavior. At one point, the judge apparently pointedly asked to be directed to when an apology had been made, as he had "asserted in court papers." When making an allegation, it is advisable that an attorney be able to point to the record in support.
Judge Wright was also apparently as unpersuaded by Mr. Hooks' assertion that the emails could not be held against him because they were "unauthenticated." The Judge reportedly took issue with Mr. Hooks' arguments and legal ability, at one point questioning "You did go to law school, right?” The Judge was nonplussed and even dismissive. At one point, allegedly, telling Mr. Hooks simply to "Shut up." Judge Wright suggested that Mr. Hooks should not be an attorney.
Whether these various emails were sent, and whether they say what is alleged, are matters of fact. But, if they were, the content is scurrilous. inflammatory, and unprofessional. That we all say things we do not mean or wish we could unsay, is a fact. Generally speaking, when we do so, a sincere apology and an acknowledgment of responsibility are the best course.
If an ethical complaint is brought against Mr. Hooks, it will be considered in a unique Bar Court, as discussed in Don't Double Down Dummy. The Court will make its findings and then perhaps make a recommendation to the California Supreme Court regarding Mr. Hooks. It is important to remember that his defenses may be authentic. It is possible Mr. Hooks did not say those things. It is also possible that he did and now understands that they were inappropriate, hurtful, and wrong. Emotions may be governing intellect as this saga continues.
I have perceived over my few years in this profession that the Courts seem to value contrition, the taking of responsibility, and the earnest focus on improved behavior. That said, this profession has much to protect. Its members are responsible for preserving the rights of clients, in some instances their very lives and livelihoods. The conflicts are real. They are stressful. They are frustrating. And, we are all imperfect. But, we have to maintain decorum and strive for professionalism. We cannot resort to hate and vitriol, even when our anger, frustration, and despair are overwhelming.
The Judge allegedly said to Mr. Hooks "This profession doesn't need you." If the allegations are proven, perhaps Judge Wright is correct. Perhaps the California court will conclude that civility, demeanor, and decorum are both preferred and required. Time will tell. Next time your frustrations take you to poor word choice or anger, acknowledge the error, own it, apologize, and regroup. A stonewall defense such as denial and deflection is likely to lead only to more frustration, stress, and pressure.
