Opinion ID: 1936508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: oregon police dispatch communications

Text: ¶ 26. Count Nine alleges the violation of SCR 20:4.4 (a lawyer shall not use means which have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person in the course of representing a client). [13] Count Ten alleges another violation of SCR 20:8.4(g) in conjunction with SCR 40.15. Count Eleven involves another violation of SCR 20:8.4(c) and also 20:4.1(a) (in the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person). [14] ¶ 27. These counts arise out of a series of telephone calls to a police dispatcher made by Attorney Eisenberg from a bar/restaurant in Corvallis, Oregon, where he was appearing pro hac vice for a criminal client. The client had been given a message from a police detective to call him on what turned out to be an unrelated matter. Attorney Eisenberg, allegedly believing the detective was harassing his client, called the number several times eventually reaching the police dispatcher. He told the dispatcher that this was a life or death emergency, used vulgar language, and demanded to talk to the detective. He did not cooperate with the dispatcher and claimed I am going to have his [detective's] badge. He also referred to the detective as an asshole and a thug. ¶ 28. The referee took testimony from Attorney Eisenberg with respect to these counts and also listened to the tape of the communications. The referee found as a matter of fact that Attorney Eisenberg (1) threatened, lied, demanded, swore, insulted . . . acted in a rude and obnoxious manner; (2) knew that there was no emergency of any sort; and (3) had no purpose other than to just embarrass or burden the dispatchers. The referee further concluded as a matter of law that this situation evinced the epitome of an offensive personality and also violated the other two rules. ¶ 29. Attorney Eisenberg has conceded that the call was contentious but basically submits it was simply the result of overzealous representation of his client. ¶ 30. We adopt the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to these counts. We have previously rejected the argument that the offensive personality language of the Attorney's Oath is unconstitutionally vague or over broad when applied to an attorney's professional conduct, to the extent Attorney Eisenberg may so contend. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Beaver, 181 Wis. 2d 12, 510 N.W.2d 129 (1994). We further note that State v. Heilprin, 59 Wis. 2d 312, 207 N.W.2d 878 (1973) found an offensive personality to have been present under circumstances, although different from those in this case, which also involved generally rude, discourteous, abusive, aggressive, and hostile statements like the case here. Accordingly, we hold that the conclusions of law of the referee with respect to these three counts are correct.