Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

Justices of the Appellate Division, First Department v. Erdmann

Justices of the App. Div., First Dep’t v. Erdmann, 33 N.Y.2d 559 (New York Court of Appeals 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1973-07-02
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reversing sanction against attorney who criticized trial judges for not following the law, and appellate judges for being “the whores who became madams”
  • attorney not subject to discipline even though he called appellate judges “whores who become madams,” and claimed that the only way to become a judge was “to be in politics or to buy it”
  • attorney not subject to discipline for an out-of-court statement

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Justices of the Appellate Division, First Department v. Erdmann. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
Per Curiam.

Without more, isolated instances of disrespect for the law, Judges and courts expressed by vulgar and insulting words or other incivility, uttered, written, or committed outside the precincts of a court are not subject to professional discipline (cf. Code of Professional Responsibility, EC 8-6; cf., generally, Ann., Attorneys — Criticizing Court, 12 ALR 3d 1408). Nor is the matter substantially altered if there is hyperbole expressed in the impoverished vocabulary of the street. On *560 this view, no constitutional issue of privileged expression is involved in the conduct ascribed to appellant.

Perhaps persistent or general courses of conduct, even if parading as criticism, which are degrading to the law, the Bar, and the courts, and are irrelevant or grossly excessive, would present a different issue. No such issue is presented now.

As for the self-laudatory content of the magazine article to which appellant contributed, the petition charged misconduct but the Appellate Division did not ground its action on that allegation.

Since appellant’s out-of-court conduct was not censurable, it would not be appropriate to characterize further that conduct on the score of taste, civility, morality, or ethics.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed.