Matter Of Holtzman

577 N.E.2d 30 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was the District Attorney of Kings County. D publicly released a letter charging Judge Irving Levine with judicial misconduct. The letter stated: 'Judge Levine asked the Assistant District Attorney, defense counsel, defendant, court officer, and court reporter to join him in the robing room, where the judge then asked the victim to get down on the floor and show the position she was in when she was being sexually assaulted. * * * The victim reluctantly got down on her hands and knees as everyone stood and watched. In making the victim assume the position she was forced to take when she was sexually assaulted, Judge Levine profoundly degraded humiliated and demeaned her.' The letter was publicly disseminated after D's office issued a 'news alert' to the media. An Administrative Judge of the New York City Criminal Court conducted an investigation and found that D's accusations were not supported by the evidence. The Chief Administrative Judge referred the matter to P for inquiry as to whether petitioner had violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. Charge 1 alleged that D released a false accusation of misconduct against Judge Levine. Charge 2 stated that D released an audio portion of a deposition tape to the media, despite her knowledge that the complainant would be a necessary witness in other investigations. Charge 3 related to a later press release in which D stated that she had knowledge of other allegations of misconduct involving the Judge, thereby further demeaning him. P released he letter to the media (1) prior to obtaining the minutes of the criminal trial, (2) without making any effort to speak with court officers, the court reporter, defense counsel or any other person present during the alleged [misconduct, (3) without meeting with or discussing the incident with the trial assistant who reported it, and (4) with the knowledge that Judge Levine was being transferred out of the Criminal Court, and the matter would be investigated by the Court's Administrative Judge as well as the Commission on Judicial Conduct (to which the petitioner had complained). The Committee sustained Charges 1 and 3, and concluded that D's conduct was 'prejudicial to the administration of justice and adversely reflects on [her] fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102 (A) (5) and (6) of the Code of Professional Responsibility.' No mention was made of DR 8-102 (B). D brought this proceeding seeking to vacate the Letter of Reprimand. The Appellate Division concluded that the record supported the Committee's findings as to Charge 1, more specifically that petitioner's conduct violated DR 8-102 and 1-102 (A) (6). D appealed. D asserts that the allegations concerning Judge Levine's conduct were true or at least not demonstrably false. D asserts that her conduct violates no specific disciplinary rule and further that DR 1-102 (A) (6), if applicable, is unconstitutionally vague.