Lawyer, Client Sanctioned $29K for Client’s Profanity-Laced Deposition

Legal Ethics

Lawyer, Client Sanctioned $29K for Client’s Profanity-Laced Deposition

Posted Mar 5, 2008, 09:39 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia has tallied the number of times a litigant dropped the F-word or a variant in a deposition—it was 73 times—and calculated the sanction he and his lawyer should pay—it is more than $29,000.

The client, Aaron Wider, is CEO of HTFC Corp., a company accused of selling poor-quality residential mortgage loans to the plaintiff in the suit, GMAC Bank. He is represented by Joseph Ziccardi of Chicago.

Wider not only used vulgarity, his conduct was hostile and his answers were evasive or obstructionist, the judge said, according to a story by the Legal Intelligencer. At one point in the deposition Wider referred to the opposing lawyer as a “f--- face” and at another as an asshole.

Wider "sought to intimidate opposing counsel by maintaining a persistently hostile demeanor, employing uncivil insults, and using profuse vulgarity," Robreno wrote in his opinion (PDF). And his lawyer was at fault for failing to restrain him, Robreno said, noting that a video shows him "chuckling at Wider's abusive behavior.”

"Ziccardi's failure to address, then and there, Wider's misconduct could have no other effect but to empower Wider to persist in his behavior. Under these circumstances, the court equates Ziccardi's silence with endorsement and ratification of Wider's misconduct," Robreno said.

At one point, Wider threw something of a fit when the lawyer asked him to open a file, the opinion says. "I'm taking a break. F--- him,” Wider said. “You open up the document. You want me to look at something, you get the document out. Earn your f---ing money, asshole. Isn't the law wonderful?'"

Robreno said the opposing lawyer, Robert Bodzin of Philadelphia, "exercised great restraint" in response to Wider's attempts to incite him.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Reader - 6 months, 18 hours, 18 minutes ago

The dialogue in the opinion is hilarious and preposterous at the same time. A great opinion to read if one has a little non-billable time available.
Posted by Megan - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 49 minutes ago

This is a classic case of when you should fire your client!
Posted by Marc - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 12 hours, 50 minutes ago

This is a perfect example of why one should never argue with a jerk/idiot/a$$hole. People might not be able to tell the difference. On the other hand, the deposing lawyer’s conduct in this was brilliant which made the motion that much easier.
Posted by get rhythm - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 48 minutes ago

What should the lawyer of the vulgar client have done? Terminate the deposition? Counsel the client? Apologize? Withdraw? I have a little problem with sanctions against the lawyer for laughing. I didn’t read the opinion or see the video recording but there is humor in everything. Laughing at idiotic behavior is natuiral. Unless the lawyer provoked or condoned the action it might be different. That’s why the judge wears the black robe.I guess.
Posted by Randy - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 47 minutes ago

The sanctions aren’t large enough. The decline in civility in our profession is serious, and the defendant’s lawyer should be held more accountable for allowing such behavior. Bravo to the plaintiff’s counsel. He should be given a medal.
Posted by Jeff - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 18 minutes ago

I imagine the sanctioned attorney should have made at least an attempt to ask his client to restrain his language or made an effort to apologize to the deposing attorney. Sounds like he did neither. How far would the client have gotten using such language in court. The client either didn’t appreciate the authority of the court in the deposition, or wasn’t informed by his attorney.
Posted by Ty - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 26 minutes ago

The sanctions are less for the f-bombs and more for the client being non-responsive. Did you see what the client said his company name stood for? Are you kidding me? That alone would have put me on the floor. . .
Posted by Holy Prepuce - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 21 minutes ago

My favorite part about this opinion is the line where they compare the number of times the “f-word” appears (73) with the number of times the word contract appears (14).
Posted by khazeh - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 9 hours, 32 minutes ago

The sanctioned attorney should also have been thinking how a jury would react to watching this videotape.
Posted by Angela Brooks - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 9 hours, 21 minutes ago

This is the best read I have had in a long time! Unbelievable that this man’s attorney did not reprimand his client, but based upon the guys level of unbridled hostility maybe he was afraid of him! Good grief.
Posted by Ithacan - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 8 hours, 20 minutes ago

The real sanction will be when the deposition is presented at trial.
Posted by toomanydepositions - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 49 minutes ago

This is a good one! For once a jerk gets it in the teeth. I can’t count the number of times the standard answer to every question is, “I can’t recall,” or “I can’t remember.” followed by a leer. Then a treck to Chambers and then more of the same and the deponent walks, b/c the Court has no guts to impose sanctions after repeated requests and motions. THANK YOU JUDGE!!!! The subprime clown needs to learn to make new friends but not keep the old....in the pokey!
Posted by Tony - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 38 minutes ago

This story reminds me of a great story told to me by my torts professor. He swears its true but I make no claim to the tale’s authenticity . . . The story goes that following a particularly devestating round of testimoney for a lawyer in a case, at the conclusion of the proceedings, the bailiff called the gallery to order by saying, “all rise for the judge.” Whereupon the lawyer in question muttered in a slightly audible tone, “asshole.” The bailiff, upon hearing the comment shouted, “who called the judge an asshole?” Whereupon the lawyer responded in an equally loud shout, “who called that asshole a judge?” I understand the fine was unusually stiff.

Fact or fish story, I leave it to you to decide. But its funny nonetheless.
Posted by George Sly - 5 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, 30 minutes ago

I have never seen such behavior. Reading the opinion, I can’t believe that the deponent’s counsel was so stupid as to let his client behave this way. Ithacan is right, either playing the tape or reading the transcript of this depositon to the jury, will kill this guys case. If one of my clients behaved that way, I’d move to be relieved, or as Megan puts it fire the client. There is absolutely no excuse for this type of behavior and the deponent is lucky that he’s not in jail for contempt. I noted Judge Robreno stated if this behavior were repeated there would be more severe sanctions, one would hope these guys can take the hint.
Posted by Second-career lawyer to be - 5 months, 4 weeks, 3 hours, 1 minute ago

Where can we see the video? Want to play it at my graduation party.
Posted by big city thugs - 5 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 14 hours, 25 minutes ago

typical chicago lawyer
Posted by Otto - 5 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 13 hours, 42 minutes ago

Initial reaction at reading this article is naturally of outrage at the witness. However, reading the the Opinion at p. 3 where the witness states, “If you f* with my mental illness . . .”, indicates other factors involved that may help explain the deponent’s behavior but is no excuse for that of his counsel.
Posted by Natalie - 5 months, 3 weeks, 5 days, 4 hours, 15 minutes ago

Otto: If you read further, you will discover that Mr. Wider attempted to use his mental capacity as an excuse for his behavior. When Judge Robreno offered the opportunity for Mr. Wider to present his doctor’s testimony to the Court, Mr. Wider, in direct opposition to the Judge’s requirements, filed the report under seal and didn’t copy it to opposing counsel. The Judge therefore refused to consider it. Additionally, Mr. Wider stated at the beginning of his deposition that he suffers from an anxiety disorder and takes medication for that condition. Mr. Bodzin ascertained that Mr. Wider was experiencing no adverse effects to his medication and further stated, “All right. If at any time during the deposition you are feeling adverse [e]ffects of the medication, will you let me know that?” If Mr. Wider’s behavior was truly caused by a medical condition, he had the chance to present that evidence properly to the Court and chose not to do so.

George Sly: Did you read the footnotes regarding Judge Robreno’s warning of more severe sanctions to follow? He cites Pennsylvania’s Rules of Conduct and case law regarding disciplinary actions against attorneys, as well as case law for dismissing all of a party’s claims and counterclaims for “his outrageous conduct during his depositions...”

Bravo, Judge Robreno, for getting us one step closer to putting the “civil” back in “civil litigation.”

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Legal Ethics