Opinion ID: 1925132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Accusations Against Counsel/Inflammatory Characterizations

Text: The Respondent's personal attacks against counsel for the County is similar to the conduct discussed in Cannon v. Cherry Hill Toyota, Inc. [5] In that case, the United States District Court for New Jersey found that sanctions were warranted for unduly inflammatory language in [the attorney's] certifications and briefs, [6] and for his repeated use of inflammatory language in his personal attacks on Plaintiff and her attorneys. [7] The court held: Use of such language does nothing to assist the Court in deciding the merits of a motion, wastes judicial resources by requiring the Court to wade through the superfluous verbiage to decipher the substance of the motion, does not serve the client's interests well, and generally debases the judicial system and the profession. The Court is aware that a lawyer has an obligation and a duty to represent his client zealously and with diligence. See RPC 1.3. However, [t]he circumstances of this case . . . present the unhappy picture of a lawyer who has crossed the boundary of legitimate advocacy into personal recrimination against his adversary. [8] In this case, we conclude that the Respondent's written statements in his briefs filed with the Superior Court similarly violate Rule 3.5(d). [9] First, the Respondent directly accused a fellow member of the Bar of fabricating the basis of the LIRB's decision. Second, the Respondent engaged in discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal.