The civility of attorneys and professionalism has often been neglected and its importance may not be as prevalent as it was in days past.  However, there were two recent cases whereby the court looked at the behavior of an attorney in his own case and a litigant during his divorce trial and in observing the behavior the court made a determination against both parties as a result of their bad behavior. 

 These cases give credence to this quote by Fulton Sheen.  “Politeness is a way of showing externally the internal regard we have for others.  Good manners are the shadows cast by virtues.”  

The case of the attorney who acted inappropriately during his divorce made the front page of the New York Law Journal for berating a referee in his own divorce and was sanctioned. The attorney, a veteran criminal defense and civil rights lawyer has been politically censored after repeatedly disparaging a special referee who adjudicated major parts of his divorce with his wife calling the special referee “a liar” who “fixes matrimonial actions” in one of several letters he sent to the state’s chief administrative judge.  This attorney went on a rampage sending letters to various chief administrative judges disparaging the referee.  

As a result of his behavior and campaign writing the grievance committee requested that the attorney Mr. Freifeld be punished with public censure as opposed to license suspension or disbarment – the appellate division first department went to extraordinary length to explain that they “in no way are tolerating disrespectful and discourteous behavior by a member of the bar.”  Attorneys are to be held to a higher standard and rightfully so 

 In another case in New York County a husband’s behavior during divorce litigation was evidence of his conduct during the marriage and this was used against him in determining equitable distribution. JPN v. T.N., September 13th. 

 In this case the plaintiff had filed for divorce from her husband alleging a conduct of verbal and emotional abuse.  The couple had assets requiring separate financial trials to distribute the marital property which consisted mainly of investments of the wife’s employment with an investment bank.  There were also allegations of domestic violence.  The court held that it must consider the effects of the husband’s domestic violence during the marriage and his abuse throughout the divorce proceeding to reach the correct equitable result on the parties’ financial matters. The court noted a previous finding of domestic violence referenced in the custody order and husband’s intentional actions to damage the wife’s career by sharing information about her employment with reporters in violation of a confidentiality Order.  

The court then distributed 85 percent of the marital assets to the wife.  They found that the husband’s harassment during the marriage was substantiated by his conduct during the divorce proceedings and threatened the wife’s future earnings.  This case is of interest because the court’s focus was not just on his abusive behavior alone, but how his behavior and his harassment affected her career. The husband tried to destroy her career, reputation and her earning potential. One can say it was economic as well as emotional abuse. 

The court fashioned an appropriate remedy by awarding the wife 85% of the equitable distribution.  This is an extremely important decision.  As often occurs in divorce litigation spouses will threaten to destroy someone’s business. A spouse may call certain clients or customers, divulging personal information or business practices they were privy to which will impact how the client or customer feels about the person.  True or not if it has a deleterious affect on their business or career, it affects their income; it is something that can be considered by the court and rightly so. Such behavior is not to be tolerated and it is destructive to both parties. To destroy a party’s income or assets which the soon to be ex- spouse will either share in or be reliant on in if child support or maintenance is awarded is reminiscent of the wise saying, “Be careful not to kill the goose who lays the golden eggs.”