In the recent unpublished opinion in the case of ANN MINZNER-CONLEY v. DANIEL CONLEY. Docket No. A-1853-23, the Appellate Court issued a ruling affirming the decision of the Trial Court to award counsel fees to the Plaintiff. However, that is not what is important. What IS important is that the Appellate Court made it clear that the Trial Court acted inappropriately and it felt compelled to “remind the court of its duty to conduct proceedings with dignity, patience and courtesy to litigants and counsel alike.”
Charles Brumlik, J.D., Ph.D. stepped in to assist the Defendant pro bono, and had already successfully steered the matter to negotiations and a settlement at a prior court appearance. Somewhere along the way to effectuating the Agreement, though, things fell apart and motions were filed back and forth by both parties to enforce the Agreement.
At the hearing that is the subject of the appeal, the Trial Court’s demeanor toward the Defendant, but more so toward Defendant’s counsel, went off the rails. The Defendant’s appeal challenged the Trial Court’s compliance with Judicial Canon 3A(3), and the Appellate Court agreed.
Quoting directly from the Appellate Court’s opinion:
Defendant also challenges the court’s compliance with Judicial Canon 3A(3), referencing the court’s clearly expressed anger, and bias against counsel and defendant, and disparagement of counsel during the hearing in the presence of opposing counsel and clients.
…the court criticized counsel for his preparation of the brief and stated he had wasted the court’s time. The court then stated:
“There’s a look of concern on your face and I . . . want to tell you that I’m glad, because I think you . . . should have a look of concern. I probably have a look of concern on my face because I’m concerned. Very. I’m afraid, I’m afraid, [defendant’s counsel,] to tell you that it doesn’t seem like you know what you’re doing. And that’s . . . a big problem. So don’t say anything. I haven’t called on you to say anything at this point.”
The court expressed its frustration that defendant had not complied with a prior order. But added: “I’m sorry to say I think he’s receiving advice from someone who doesn’t spend any time in Superior Court, Family Court and that has probably contributed to this situation. But I am inclined to afford to [plaintiff’s counsel] really what[ ]ever remedy [they] want.” The court described himself as using a “raised voice and excited tone.”
Later, the court told defendant’s counsel he “should stick to patent law,” he had wasted everyone’s time and made the situation worse. The court also said it was “tempted . . . to set [the case] down for an [o]rder [t]o [s]how [c]ause as to why [defendant’s counsel] should not be sanctioned a lot of money. I’m just so tempted to do it. But I just don’t have the time.”
This disparagement of counsel and threats of sanctions for “thousands of dollars” is improper judicial behavior. This is a post-judgment motion to enforce a party’s obligation under their MSA. Certainly, the court had seen circumstances before where a party did not abide by its obligation.
A lawyer should not be subjected to that mistreatment in a (virtual) courtroom proceeding in front of their clients. Defendant’s lawyer assisted twice in reaching agreements in this matter, alleviating the court of making any decision. That his client later failed to abide by the agreement was not the fault of counsel. Plaintiff sought fees for defendant’s failure to comply with the consent order and not as a sanction against his counsel.
For the reasons stated, we disagree that the fee award was a sanction against defendant or his counsel. However, considering the court’s acknowledged tone and behavior, we are constrained to remind the court of its duty to conduct proceedings with dignity, patience and courtesy to litigants and counsel alike.
As a trier and finder of fact, the Court is obligated to be an independent, neutral party.
According to Canon 3A.(3), “A judge should be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and should not permit lawyers, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control to display impatience or discourtesy or to detract from the dignity of the court.
“Commentary: The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.”
The Court overtly directed its ire at the Defendant and, specifically, his counsel, Charles Brumlik, through the entire proceeding. Judge Robert G. Wilson admittedly began the proceeding with obvious anger, and even made reference to it on the record multiple times. The demeanor exacted at Mr. Brumlik was unnecessary and unwarranted, and goes against the values established in the Code of Judicial Conduct and, specifically, Canon 3A(3).
Litigation is tough enough for all involved. No one standing before a judge should be subjected to that behavior. Kudos to the Appellate Court for making that clear.
