May 14, 2008

BNA (subscription required) reports that the grievance committee of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has suspended Kristan Peters from the court despite the fact that she has appealed the judge's sanctions order that led to the disciplinary proceeding (In re Peters, S.D.N.Y., No. M-2-238, 4/10/08). The court found the evidence of her misconduct overwhelming, and the basis for her appeal to be frivolous.

Peters, who was ead counsel for plaintiff Wolters Kluwer Financial Services in a suit against Scivantage, had been sanctioned by Judge Harold Baer for using what the judge found to be scorched-earth litigation tactics in a trade secrets case in the Southern District of New York. Less than a month after filing the lawsuit--and just before her opponent met a discovery deadline and turned over thousands of documents--Peters voluntarily dismissed the complaint and immediately filed a similar action in Massachusetts federal district court.

As factors justifying the interim suspension, the committee cited the nature and seriousness of the charges against the lawyer, the strength of the record supporting those charges, and the danger that Peters might repeat her misconduct since she disputes its wrongfulness. The grievance committee noted especially that Peters had instructed an associate in her firm to mark up deposition transcripts to make it appear that they were work product that could arguably be withheld from the district court, and then attempted to mislead the court about that incident by characterizing her instructions to the associate as a "joke." Peters had also used deposition transcripts in the action in Massachusetts in violation of a confidentiality order entered in the Southern District litigation.

The committee found that Peters clearly violated at least three disciplinary rules of the New York Code of Professional Responsibility by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (DR 1-102(A)(5)), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (DR 1-102(A)(4)), and disregarding a tribunal's rulings or advising a client to do so (DR 7-106(A)).

Judge Baer's sanctions order and referral to the grievance committee are part of a refreshing new tendency of judges to sanction unethical attorney conduct. This phenomenon and this case were discussed by your reporter extensively in a recent Washington Legal Foundation podcast, which had been advertised on this site and is available on the web.