Preliminary remarks on review of the transcripts of New York State Statewide Commission on Attorney Discipline

I am reviewing the transcripts of the three "public" hearings that the Statewide Commission for Attorney Discipline that were posted on the Commission's website.

Before I go into details - and there will be a lot of details, because transcripts of the hearings are fairly long,  I would like to make some preliminary remarks. 

ATTENDANCE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS BY COMMISSION MEMBERS

First, not all members of the Commission cared to even come to the public hearings, and I wonder if the findings of the Commission are valid where 

Out of 41 members of the Commission:

• 8 members  (19.5%) were present at the Albany public hearing; the names of Commission members present at that hearing (according to the transcript) are:
• Peter James Johnson, Esq.;
• Prof. W. Bradley Wendel;
• Monica Duffy, Esq.;
• Devika Kewalramani, Esq.;
• Robert Guido, Esq.;
• Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
• Sean Morton, Esq.;
• E.J. Thorsen, Esq.
• 6 members (14.6%) were present at the Buffalo public hearing; names of Commission members present at that hearing (according to the transcript) are:
•  Barry Cozier, Esq. (former appellate judge);
• Stephen Lindley (appellate judge);
• Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
• Robert Guido, Esq.;
• Prof. W. Bradley Wendel;
• Vincent Doyle, III, Esq.
• 6 members (14.6%) were present at the New York City "public" hearing where reporter Gary Jacobs was ousted from the building, and an attempt was made to oust him off the sidewalk to prevent his reporting - in violation of Open Meetings Law; the names of Commission members who were present that day (according to the transcript) and are responsible for ousting Mr. Jacobs are:  
• Barry Cozier, Esq. (former appellate judge);
• Peter Skelos, Esq. (former appellate judge);
• Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
• Robert Guido, Esq.;
• Devika Kewalramani, Esq.;
• Sean Morton, Esq. (Deputy Clerk, Appellate Division, 3rd Department)

I highlighted in green names of Commission members who appeared in all three public hearings.

There are only 2 out of 41 (4.8%) of Commission members who considered it necessary for themselves to appear at public hearings.

Their names are:

1. Mark Zauderer, Esq.;
2. Robert Guido, Esq.

I highlighted in yellow names of Commission members who appeared in two out of three public hearings.


 There are 4 out of 41 (9.7%) of Commission members who appeared in only two out of three public hearings.

Their names are:

1. Prof. W. Bradley Wendel;
2. Devika Kewalramani, Esq.;
3. Sean Morton, Esq.;
4. Barry Cozier, Esq.

 I did not highlight names of Commission members who appeared in only one out of three public hearings.

There are 6 out of 41 (14.6%) of Commission members who appeared in only on out of three public hearings.

Their names are:

1. Peter James Johnson, Esq.;
2. Monica Duffy, Esq.;
3. E.J. Thorsen, Esq.;
4. Stephen Lindley (appellate judge);
5. Vincent Doyle, III, Esq.;
6. Peter Skelos, Esq.

All in all, 12 out of 41 members of the Commission (29.2%) appeared at the public hearings that the Commission held, and the absolute super-majority of the Commission did not appear at all, including 100% of the lay members of the Commission.

If the majority of members of the Commission were too busy to attend all three two-hour meetings, and thus shirked their duty, I wonder why they agreed to participated in the Commission in the first place - to have a point on their resumes?



WASTE OF TIME BY COMMISSION MEMBERS

I am reading now the Albany transcript, and I already noted the outstanding amount of time wasted by members of the Commission in making unnecessary curtsies to each other, the judicial system and glorifying how good the judicial system is, the judges who allowed the use of their building are, how good the existing attorney disciplinary system is, how a Commission member was presenting oral arguments in the court where the Commission was sitting etc. etc. etc.

The brown-nosing by Commission members is truly nauseating - and a tremendous waste of time since time for the hearings was very limited, hearings were held during summer vacation period, and at lunch time, for 2 hours, only a limited number of witnesses was pre-screened and invited to testify, each witness was given only 10 minutes to testify - and against that background of time limitations, the waste of time by the Commission members on glorifying each other and the judicial system is even more frustrating.



BICKERING WITH WITNESSES BY COMMISSION MEMBERS

Conflict of interest of Commission members was readily apparent where witnesses criticized the state of events for which one or more Commission members present at the hearing was responsible, and the criticized Commission member immediately launched arguments with the witness, badgering the witness and forcing the witness, for the sake of having any changes in the system, to appease the criticized member of the Commission and to back down on the criticism.

That was truly disgusting to read.

Such bickering - or witness badgering - or the need for witnesses to practically apologize and back out of their testimony or criticism of what was the problem CREATED by the Commission members that the Commission members were supposed to somehow resolve - would not have happened, had the Commission consisted of neutral individuals and not of people who created the problems that the Commission is supposed to find solutions for.

Nothing like observing a bunch of foxes come together to preside over invitation-by-testimony by chickens.
                       

                            *              *               *
 

I will run detailed blogs on the language used by the members of the Commission, the choice of witnesses who testified by invitation, the points that each witness made, whether such points were (in my opinion, of course), meritorious or not, and why certain points were made - and, especially, why certain points were omitted by certain witnesses.

Stay tuned.