POD - that's the code for his employee, and answering a follow-up question, no, the employee is not admitted to practice law;
ZLS - that's a code for the legal secretary
- Lack of itemized billing - to all other attorneys in New York State it is a disciplinary violation;
- Billing for services of auxiliary personnel without authorization of the client;
- Billing for legal services of an individual who was not licensed to practice law - which is a disciplinary violations, if not a crime, for all other "mere mortal" attorneys in the state of New York;
- Billing for notary services at $100/hr;
- Billing for postage, copying and mileage - that the NYS AG's office claimed back in 1999 is usually absorbed by law firms, but Mr.Harlem did not learn the lesson and continues to bill for it;
- Failure to comply with the requirements for a specific retainer agreement and clients' bill of rights under 22 NYCRR 1400 while bringing a case of enforcement of a contract to make a will out of a judgment of divorce;
- Failure to have proper retainer agreements justifying hourly rates of attorneys and law firms' personnel;
- Failure to get approval of legal fees from the clients before presenting them to the court.
Yet, the entire judgment of divorce was submitted to the court by Mr. Harlem as part of his 2nd Amended Complaint.
Moreover, if it was "just" an enforcement of the contract to make a will, which is what Mr. Harlem argued to the court in 2007, before joining the Estate as a co-plaintiff, and arguing AGAINST giving the properties to the Estate, Mr. Harlem's first-in-time client (an outrageous conflict of interest), why the Estate was even joined?
I keep asking this question, and I keep getting sanctioned by the court for asking this question.
In my husband's order of disbarment the Appellate Division has already ruled that my husband "devised a plan with his client that would circumvent, in part, the intended purpose of a judgment of the Supreme Court that respondent had participated in constructing."That makes the Estate a Co-Defendant in the action. It is a Plaintiff in the action, and is represented by Mr. Harlem, as well as the the decedent's children claiming that their father violated the contract to make a will together with his then attorney, Mr. Neroni.
2/ Judge Molly R. Fitzgerald of Binghamton, NY;
3/ Judge Carl F. Becker of Delhi, NY;
4/ Judge Kevin M. Dowd of Norwich, NY, and
the following appellate panels:
5/ Judge Mercure (former acting Chief Judge of the 3rd Department);
6/ Judge Peters (current Chief Judge of the 3rd Department);
7/ Judge Spain;
8/ Judge Kavanagh;
9/ Judge McCarthy;
Panel who affirmed the partial summary judgment on liability upon which the order of disbarment was made without a hearing:
10/ Chief Judge Cardona (at that time);
Judge Peters (present Chief Judge);
11/ Judge Malone
12/ Judge Stein
13/ Judge Lahtinen
Recent sanctions decision which rejected the issue that Mr. Harlem and his law firm was disqualified and that the Estate had no standing
14/ Judge Egan
14 judges chose to consistently overlook the applicable law in order to allow for a retired judge and his son's frivolous lawsuit to proceed
Are these judges law school dropouts?
Yet, back to what happened at the June 23, 2014 hearing, and in view of that hearing it is interesting as to what will happen in the future of the Mokay saga.
At this time, Judge Dowd did not allow me to file any other motions in the Mokay action, including motion addressing the court's jurisdiction or validity of prior decisions based on new evidence, which are motions authorized by statute without leave of court.
I must make such motions only on an Order to Show Cause to Judge Dowd.
Judge Dowd has a history of ignoring my Orders to Show Cause. He did that in a Supreme Court civil action where I was asking for an emergency relief, based on evidence that my client (not my husband) would suffer irreparable harm if at least a preliminary injunction is not granted.
Yet, since Judge Dowd was assigned to that case at the same time my husband sued him in a pro se federal action, my client had to suffer, and my application for an Order to Show Cause was simply ignored.
In other words, Judge Dowd expects me to pay $45.00 filing fees into court and have my show cause applications directing right into the garbage bin. That is his concept of access to court for me and my clients, of course, after "searching his conscience" as he stated in his decision where he refused to step down from the Mokay case.
And of course, if Judge Dowd does sign an Order to Show Cause and allows the motion to proceed, since Judge Dowd disregards the law and instead regards his own reminiscences as evidence against my client and in favor of Mr. Harlem, Judge Dowd may (and, probably, will) sanction me once again for any motions that I may make to vacate the summary judgment because of Mr. Harlem's statements at the June 23, 2014 hearing.
But - Mr. Harlem did allow himself an important "slip of the tongue" in the hearing on June 23, 2014 that, in my view, does require a vacatur of the summary judgment of liability against my husband, and since I am effectively blocked from access to court on my client's and husband's behalf, I will air my opinion on what happened here, since what I raise here are issues of public concern, corruption in the court system.
When I cornered Mr. Harlem that he is enforcing a judgment of divorce while he did not comply with 22 NYCRR 1400 and thus is not entitled to one penny in legal fees (while legal fees is all that Mr. Harlem asks in actual and TREBLE damages in the action, under Judiciary Law 487), Richard Harlem claimed that he is "only" enforcing against my client a contract to make a will, not a judgment of divorce.
Yet, Mr. Harlem has so far obtained a partial summary judgment on liability against my client and husband for FRAUD UPON THE COURT - for defying a COURT ORDER, specifically, a judgment of divorce.
Based on the partial summary judgment on liability under Judiciary Law 487, enforcing the judgment of divorce, my husband was disbarred WITHOUT A HEARING, after 37 years of practice and despite running a de facto free legal clinic in the county for the indigent, for years.
When it came out in court that Mr. Harlem did not comply with 22 NYCRR 1400 for purposes of legal fees in actions enforcing such JUDGMENTS, Mr. Harlem suddenly claims that his clients are "only" enforcing a contract to make a will as 3rd party beneficiaries? Under Judiciary Law 487? In a fraud upon the court action?
A fraud upon the court action NECESSARILY relied upon the entire JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE, not upon a contract to make a will.
Now what? Will Judge Dowd and all appellate court brush a would be motion to vacate because my husband is just a "disgruntled disbarred attorney" who is below the law while Mr. Harlem is a son of a judge who is above the law? No matter what he does?
When hearing that argument from Mr. Harlem, Judge Dowd should have instantly struck the summary judgment on liability against Mr. Neroni sua sponte, without waiting for my motions.
Yet, instead, Judge Dowd reminisced about his own internship in a District Attorney's office where he was drafting indictments, reprimanded me for not settling with Mr. Harlem and awarded to Mr. Harlem everything Mr. Harlem asked in his billing statement.
It is clear to me from my own experience as an attorney in the Mokay and other cases that in New York there emerged a new body of law - a law for sons of judges (and other attorneys affiliated with judges) which defies and disregards any other law.