New York. Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
On this date in the Empire State, Steven J. Lever, Esquire, an intellectual property attorney, formerly with Kirkland & Ellis in New York City, was suspended by the New York bar after attempting to arrange a meeting “to engage in an oral sexual act” with a female he believed to be 13 years old– via an Internet chat room– in 2004.
Turns out the “girl” he thought he was chatting with was really a officer of the law who was not trolling for sex but for pedophiles. Upon arriving at the rendezvous, Lever was greeted by the officer’s colleagues who also weren’t interested in engaging in oral sex with him.
Monsieur Lever, admitted his transgression to his employer at the time, Kirkland & Ellis, who fired him forthwith– their likely logic was that he used a KE computer for “personal” reasons he hadn’t yet been convicted.
Monsieur Lever pled guilty to “attempted criminal sex act in the third degree”– a misdemeanor– in 2005.
Thereafter, the matter of attorney discipline was referred to a “referee” who, citing a variety of mitigating circumstances, recommended that monsieur Lever’s conduct warranted a six month suspension. With that, the case was referred to the New York Court System’s Appellate Division, first department. A a five judge panel was convened in 2008 to review the matter.
The panel agreed that monsieur Lever ”brought shame to himself and to this State’s Bar” by preying “on minors for purposes of sexual gratification.” What they couldn’t agree on was how much shame Lever had brought to the Bar. Was suspension sufficient punishment for an act that had “shamed” the bar for approximately four years or had monsieur Lever’s misdemeanor brought so much shame on the Bar over the past four years his behavior merited disbarment– of course it likely wasn’t monsieur Lever’s fault the “Bar” took four years to review the case.
In a precedent setting decision, the three judge majority on the panel, justices Luis A. Gonzalez, Eugene Nardelli and James M. McGuire, decided to suspend monsieur Lever for three years citing Lever’s admission of responsibility and the fact that ”after his arrest, he voluntarily entered sex offender treatment and all evidence in the record supports the therapist’s opinions that such therapy appears to be working and that the likelihood of respondent repeating the misconduct was low.’”
Therewith the majority set the important precedent that attempted, premeditated, sex with a minor does not bring enough shame on the “Bar” to warrant disbarment. And neither does being a “registered” sex offender.
The minority justices, David B. Saxe and James M. Catterson, vigorously disagreed. Justice Catterson, opining for the two of them wrote: “because I believe that a convicted and registered sex offender has forfeited the privilege of admission to the bar and the elevated status of the officer of the court, I must respectfully take the unusual step in a disciplinary proceeding and dissent… I believe that any penalty short of disbarment would not comport with the standards to which a member of the bar should adhere. I do not believe that we can reconcile the status of registered sex offender with that of a member of the bar in good standing.”
Justice Catterson will be our nominee for Attorney General. Saxe and Catterson get it. They deserve to append their names with Justice.
America’s aristocracy, our “officers of the court” have dug an enormous hole for themselves. The majority Justices in this case don’t get it. They don’t decide the level of shame an attorney’s behavior brings to the “Bar”– the public does.
This “public” expects officers of the court to abide by the rule of law and the rules of the profession. More so even, than accountants, doctors, engineers and other professionals. Because, as Justice Catterson points out, they occupy an “elevated” position in society. Respect for that position is not earned because they attended law school, passed a Bar examination or were appointed or elected to a position of power– those are indications of work ethic, intelligence, socio-economic position, etc. Respect is earned by a person’s selfless and ethical adherence to the rules by which they expect others to also adhere.
What’s your opinion?
Further reading regarding this case: [NewYorkPersonalInjuryAttorneyBlog] [New York Law Journal]
Attorney’s and judges exist in a world totally removed from reality. They’re so full of themselves and emboldened by their unbridled power they can’t even understand how the actions of their colleagues and their response thereto result in the public’s scorn of the profession.
Great blog! Entertaining and well organized. Don’t stop.
this guy’s a son-of-a-bitch (no offense to his mother, though she didn’t do a great job, apparently)