Court Opinion

ID: 9785493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:03:24.466719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:27.157102
License: Public Domain

SWAN, Judge,
concurring
Having concurred with the majority, I turn now to a matter which I find disturbing and which should not go unnoticed. Specifically, I refer to the comments of Maurice Cusick, Esq. ["Mr. Cusick"], counsel for appellant. In his brief, Mr. Cusick made disparaging remarks about the trial judge.12 This is the third case in which Mr. Cusick has made similar remarks about the same Territorial Court Judge. Counsel, as'an advocate, has an absolute right to disagree with the trial judge's decision. However, it is a different matter when counsel openly questions the competence of the Judge and the Judge's knowledge of the law. Being mindful of the adversarial nature of lawsuits, it is not uncommon for a prevailing party to agree with the Court's ruling and for the losing party to disagree and thereupon pursue any available remedy, including perfecting an appeal of the Judge's decision.
I will not condone such highly inappropriate, unprofessional and disrespectful conduct towards the court from any member of the bar. Mr. Cusick is advised to refrain from attacking the competence of members of the judiciary and to maintain an acceptable level of professionalism in his briefs and filings with the courts. Any sarcastic, caustic or demeaning tenor in the language in a party's brief or filings which is directed towards a judge is an affront to the judiciary and to the professional standards to which *134the legal community is bound. Such disparaging comments have no place in a party's filings and serve no useful purpose in advancing the arguments of counsel's clients. Even more disconcerting is that counsel has established a pattern of such conduct in filings with the Court, which has persisted despite repeated warnings.13 Mr. Cusick is cautioned, once again, that such disparaging reference to members of the court, poorly disguised as client advocacy, must cease.

 See, e.g., Brief for Appellant at 14,16.

 See Griffith v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 38 V.I. 460, 5 F. Supp. 2d 336, 340-41 (D.V.I. 1998) (admonishing counsel on his "ad hominem attacks on opposing counsel"); Torres v. Gov't of the Virgin Islands, No. 1995-77, slip op. at 6 n.8 (D.V.I. App. Div. Aug. 9, 1996) (cautioning Mr. Cusick that "incivility and disregard to judicial officers" will not be tolerated); Saldana v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, No. 1996-001 (D.V.I. May 31, 1996) (finding that Mr. Cusick's attacks on the trial judge and opposing counsel "border on being impertinent and scandalous").