Lawyer Suspended for False Accusation of Anti-Semitism Against Cop

Usually, when you see and hear cop videos and recordings on the web it is part of the a condemnation of conduct, going back to the Rodney King beating video up to the UC Davis Occupy protest where Lt. John Pike pepper-sprayed protesters like they were weeds.

But not today. Today the video (and audio) exonerates the cop.

In Matter of Dear, a guy gets a speeding ticket for going 85 in a 55 zone. Said guy happens to be a lawyer. And said lawyer, who is also an orthodox Jew, tries to blast his way out of the ticket with this humdinger of a letter:

“Ladies and Gentlemen:
This ticket shall be dismissed immediately since -
a. there was no speeding and the officer refused to show me evidence that there was: (i.e. – “not guilty”)
b. even if there was speeding (which there wasn’t) – I was in a 65-mph zone NOT a 55 mph zone; and
c. The officer called me a “jew kike” – and this prejudice obviously was the cause for the ticket.
I am a licensed attorney in NY State and will be representing myself in this matter (contact details enclosed).
Eliot Dear
[signed] Eliot Dear Esq.
[business card attached]“

Ouch. You know where this is going, right? The cop had a video camera on the car, unbeknownst to Dear. And the cop was wired for audio.

And when confronted on the phone about this by an investigator — who was also recording the call — he didn’t ‘fess up that he  had lied. The decision by the First Department today continues regarding the investigation:

The interview continued and respondent added that the trooper dismissed respondent’s proffered explanation for speeding, namely, that his pregnant wife needed a bathroom, as more baloney from “you guys,” which respondent stated referred to orthodox Jews. Respondent further recounted that the trooper displayed a demeaning attitude toward respondent and his wife. However, none of this information was supported by the video or audio recordings made during the traffic stop.

“You guys.” Nice.

There is a long explanation offered in mitigation — offered after he finally does ‘fesses up —  about his psychiatric treatment for a variety of problems and family issues.

And the verdict? Suspended for six months. The Court finds that Dear made accusations, ”which accusations were prejudicial to the administration of justice, engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as an attorney, [and] asserted positions which served to harass and maliciously injure.”

Why suspension and not something a little lighter? The Court:

Here, respondent cavalierly attributed anti-Semitic slurs to an innocent person in a manner which could have had devastating consequences to that person’s career. This act alone warrants a harsh sanction, not to mention that it was done to gain an advantage in an administrative proceeding. Notwithstanding the mitigating evidence and respondent’s apparently sincere remorse, his behavior was reckless and reflects poorly on the bar. Under the circumstances, censure or admonition is simply too lenient a penalty.

File this under Attorney Ethics.

Tags:

4 Responses Leave a comment

  • Jock 2011.12.10 at 11:30 | Quote

    It’s an interesting scienario and one that is played out around the world. In the UK we call it the race card. It is unfortunate

  • Carolyn Elefant 2011.12.12 at 11:35 | Quote

    Given that there are many places even today where anti-semitism persists, especially against Jewish lawyers, it both saddens and angers me that a Jewish lawyer would falsely accuse a police officer of derogatory, anti-semetic remarks. As a result of this lawyer’s actions, future legitimate claims of anti-semitism will probably not be taken as seriously. Six months is very harsh; maybe more than I would have gone with (maybe 3 months?) but it’s not out of bounds.

  • Amare 2011.12.12 at 17:37 | Quote

    Wow, what an incredible story. Very insensitive comments by the lawyer. He should be disbarred!

  • Andrew 2011.12.13 at 00:18 | Quote

    A New Jersey State Trooper! After what they’ve been through since ’98, you bet your ass they’re wired for sound!

Comments are closed.


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.