IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY - CAMDEN VICINAGE
THOMAS J. HUNT BARBARA HUNT
Plaintiff,
VS.
BOROUGH OF WILDWOOD CREST; Mayor CARL GROON; Chief of Police THOMAS DePAUL; Captain DAVID MAYER; Doctor GARY M GLASS
Civil Action 12-cv-6887 (JEI/ AMD)
Individually and in their official capacities, Jointly, Severally and in the Alternative
Defendants
NOTICE OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
On Behalf of the Defendants, Mayor Carl Groan, Chief of Police Thomas DePaul,
And Captain David Mayer Jointly Severally, and in the Alternative
Todd J. Gelfand, Esquire Attorney ID TG/3528
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES A Professional Corporation
The Laurelwood Corporate Center 1101 Laurel Oak Road - Suite 110
Voorhees, New Jersey 08043 (856) 874-0555
(856) 344-5193 - Telefax (609) 601-8577 - Alternate Telefax
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2320
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned, on behalf of the
Defendants, Mayor Carl Groon, Chief of Police Thomas DePaul, And
Captain David Mayer, Jointly Severally, and in the Alternative,
shall move before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio,
United States District Court, Camden, New Jersey, on a date and
time to be set by the Court for an Order granting Defendants'
motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned offers the attached
Brief and Exhibits in support of the Motion to Disqualify.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES A Professional Corporation
2 By: Todd J. Gel an Esquire
Dated: May 20, 2015
Notice of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs' Counsel Page 2 of 2
Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2321
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY - CAMDEN VICINAGE
THOMAS J. HUNT BARBARA HUNT
Plaintiff,
VS.
Civil Action 12-cv-6887 (JEI/ AMD)
BOROUGH OF WILDWOOD CREST; Mayor CARL GROON; Chief of Police THOMAS DePAUL; Captain DAVID MAYER; Doctor GARY M GLASS
Individually and in their official capacities, Jointly, Severally and in the Alternative
Defendants
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
On Behalf of the Defendants, Mayor Carl Groon, Chief of Police Thomas DePaul,
And Captain David Mayer Jointly Severally, and in the Alternative
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES A Professional Corporation
The Laurelwood Corporate Center 1101 Laurel Oak Road - Suite 110
Voorhees, New Jersey 08043 (856) 874-0555
(856) 344-5193 - Telefax (609) 601-8577 - Alternate Telefax
[email protected] On the Brief: Todd J. Gelfand, Esquire Atty ID TG-3528
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 24 PageID: 2322
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PREAMBLE 1
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 6
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 12
IV. CONCLUSION 20
Table of Contents/ Table of Citations Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 1 of 3
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 24 PageID: 2323
TABLE OF CITATIONS
Century Indemnity Company v Congoleum Corporation, 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005) 13 Citing, Local Rule 103.1 (DNJ) 13
Dewey v R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 109 NJ 201 (1988) 13
Citing, Reardon v Marlayne, Inc., 83 NJ 460 (1980) 14
Haggerty v Red Bank Borough Zoning Board of Adjustment, 385 NJ Super 501 (App. Div. 2006) 17
In Re: Corn Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, 748 F.2d 157 (3d Cir. 1984) 19
Kaleta v Clausi,
2003 US Dist. LEXIS 60879 (MD Pa. April 29, 2013) 18
Lamb v Pralex Corporation, 333 F.Supp.2d 361 (DVI July 12, 2004) 14
Citing, Powell v Alabama, 287 US 45 (1932) 14
Paff v Cape May County Prosecutor's Office, CPM-L-265-14 12
Powell v Alabama, 287 US 45 (1932) 14
Reardon v Marlayne, Inc., 83 NJ 460 (1980) 14
Rohn and Haas Company v American Cyanamid Company, 187 F.Supp.2d 221 (DNJ 2001) 13
Citing, Dewey v R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 109 NJ 201 (1988) 13
Table of Contents/ Table of Citations Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 2 of 3
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 24 PageID: 2324
State v Davis, 366 NJ Super 30 (App. Div. 2004) 17
Quoting, Administrative Determinations In Response To The Report and Recommendation of The Supreme Court Commission On The Rules Of Professional Conduct, Commission Comment, RPC 17 17
State Ex Rel S.G., 175 NJ 132 (2003) 14
Table of Contents/ Table of Citations Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 3 of 3
BARKER, GELFAND &JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, N EW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 24 PageID: 2325
I. PREAMBLE
The instant brief is in support of the Defendants' motion to
disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel, Michelle J. Douglas, Esquire, from
representing the Plaintiffs, Thomas Hunt and Barbara Hunt, in the
instant matter. The problem stems from the fact that former
Wildwood Crest Police Lieutenant Michael Hawthorne was previously
a defendant in Plaintiff Hunt's lawsuit and one of the primary
alleged wrongdoers. He was also a member of the litigation control
group. Hawthorne has since claimed that the entire matter was an
illegal conspiracy against Plaintiff Hunt which Hawthorne
participated in. In connection with that about face, Hawthorne was
dropped from the suit as a defendant and is now represented by the
same attorney who represents Plaintiff Hunt here, Ms. Douglass.
Hawthorne was represented as a Defendant in the Hunt matter
by a former attorney of the undersigned's firm. Hunt was also part
of the litigation control group not only for the Hunt civil
litigation, but Hawthorne was also a member of the litigation
control group actively involved in assisting Wildwood Crest
special counsel Attorney William G. Blaney in the administrative
disciplinary prosecution of charges against Plaintiff Hunt upon
which Hunt was terminated. Hawthorne actively assisted Blaney on
a day to day basis in the prosecution of those charges. Plaintiff
Hunt was terminated from employment with Wildwood Crest as a result
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 1 of 20
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 5 of 24 PageID: 2326
of that administrative case and his primary contention in this
civil lawsuit is that his termination was an orchestrated, illegal
conspiracy motivated by prohibited retaliation and/or
discrimination.
After years of this related civil and administrative
litigation with a tortured procedural history, a couple of things
happened which led to this tangled web of conflict, all of Lt.
Hawthorne's doing. Lt. Michael Hawthorne separated from service
with the Wildwood Crest Police department and was dropped as a
Defendant by Plaintiff's Hunt. Michael Hawthorne now has
disclosed, through his attorney Michelle Douglass, that Hawthorne
is represented by Ms. Douglass and Ms. Douglass will be suing
Wildwood Crest (cause of action or nature of action to be filed
has not been specifically disclosed) on his behalf.
The matter gets further complicated into a tangled web in
that Hawthorne's separation from service followed Hawthorne's
accusations against Defendants DePaul and Mayer, which allegations
were ultimately investigated by the Office of the County Prosecutor
and subject to an investigation by the governing body of Wildwood
Crest through an appointed investigator who is a retired New Jersey
State Police Major, Major Fallon. Through that investigation, Lt.
Hawthorne alleged in part that the investigation of Sgt. Hunt, the
Plaintiff here, was some sort of witch-hunt frame job by which
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 2 of 20
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 6 of 24 PageID: 2327
Hawthorne participated in bringing false charges against Hunt at
the behest of Defendants DePaul and Mayer.
Lt. Hawthorne performed an "off the grid" investigation of
DePaul and Mayer prior to bringing his allegations against them,
including taking his "evidence" from the police department's
confidential records to his home with no authorization for an
alleged investigation which was unauthorized and not reported
anywhere within the Wildwood Crest Police records or anywhere else.
Lt. Hawthorne also is or was widely recognized within the
department as a department "go-to IT guy" which assisted him in
his access to whatever electronic information he thought he needed
for this "off the grid" investigation of Defendants Mayer and
DePaul.
Despite knowing that Lt. Hawthorne was a defendant in Hunt's
lawsuit previously and also one of the three command staff members
of the police department during the time of the events Plaintiff
Hunt alleges in his lawsuit and thus in the City's litigation, Ms.
Douglass undertook to represent Lt. Hawthorne and for what appears
for sure to be a substantially related matter. Ms. Douglass
appeared and alleged that she represented Lt. Hawthorne in a
related OPRA matter in Superior Court by which a member of the
public sought access to the investigation reports relating to the
investigation stemming from Lt. Hawthorne's allegations of the
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 3 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 7 of 24 PageID: 2328
conspiracy to terminate Hunt which he had taken part in, among
other things. Ms. Douglass has also stated, however, that she will
filing some sort of lawsuit on behalf of Lt. Hawthorne against the
Borough of Wildwood Crest, despite the fact that Lt. Hawthorne
ultimately voluntarily left the employ Wildwood Crest by written
agreement. That written agreement followed the conclusion of the
County Prosecutor's office's investigation which resulted in
certain "pre-Brady" letters by which the County Prosecutor advised
Wildwood Crest that Lt. Hawthorne had been found to be untruthful
in these matters to an extent that the County Prosecutor felt his
office would have a Brady obligation to disclose to any criminal
defendants in a case involving Lt. Hawthorne that Lt. Hawthorne
has a credibility problem based on this investigation.
In summary, a former Defendant, Lt. Michael Hawthorne, was a
member of Wildwood Crests litigation control group and party to
confidential attorney client communications as an adverse party to
Plaintiff Thomas Hunt throughout the litigation until recently. Lt
Hawthorne was one of the three police administrators who directed
the investigation and prosecution of administrative disciplinary
charges against Plaintiff Sgt. Hunt. At some point in time, he
began a secret off the grid investigation of Defendants DePaul and
Mayer, decided he no longer stood by the charges against Hunt and
alleged that those charges resulted from an illegal conspiracy
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 4 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 8 of 24 PageID: 2329
which he was necessarily a part of. In the course of turning on
DePaul and Mayer, Lt. Hawthorne performed an off the grid
investigation which included taking confidential police
information from the department for his own personal, unauthorized
use. Lt. Hawthorne also found himself no longer a defendant in
Plaintiff Hunt's lawsuit and represented in one and soon to be two
related matters by the same attorney who previously sued him on
Sgt. Hunt's behalf.
The Borough of Wildwood Crest has every reason to believe
that its confidences shared between its attorneys and Lt.
Hawthorne, while Hawthorne was a defendant in the Hunt matter and
member of the litigation control group, have thus been discussed
with Hawthorne's new attorney who is representing Hawthorne on
related matters, especially given Hawthorne's documented history
of helping himself to whatever confidential police information he
feels entitled to take with him out of the department for his own
off the grid purposes without authorization.
Wildwood Crest and Defendants DePaul and Mayer are thus
alarmed and do not feel they can appropriately defend themselves
in this Hunt case while Hunt continues to be represented by Ms.
Douglass given the fact that their former trusted member of their
litigation control group who was privy to all confidential
communications with counsel both as to this suit and the underlying
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Page 5 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 9 of 24 PageID: 2330
administrative termination is now represented by Sgt. Hunt's
attorney. We thus assert that this creates a conflict which
requires Ms. Douglass' disqualification from representing Sgt.
Hunt in this matter. By forming a confidential attorney client
relationship with the former member of the Borough's litigation
control group and having access to confidential information
directly relating to the Hunt litigation, Ms. Douglass has put
herself in a position where she should no longer be permitted to
continue to represent plaintiffs in this matter.
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
1. On or about May 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of tort
claim with the Borough of Wildwood Crest. (See, Exhibit "1"
Notice of Tort Claim).
2. The following is excerpt from the notice of tort claim,
specifically, question #6:
Indentify all public entities or public employees fby name and position] alleged to have caused the injury or property damage, and specify as to each public entity or employee the exact nature of the act or omission allege to have caused the injury or property damage.
The Borough of Wildwood Crest; Police Chief DePaul; Captain Mayer; Lt. Hawthorne; Mayor Groon - for violation of civil rights and other violations that are detailed in the attached Addendum. (See, Exhibit "1" Notice of Tort Claim).
3. On or about May 11, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 6 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NE\x/JERsEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 10 of 24 PageID: 2331
Superior Court of New Jersey, Cape May County. (See, Exhibit
"2" State Court Complaint).
4. On or about January 2, 2013, Plaintiffs' Motion to voluntarily
dismiss the New Jersey Superior Court Complaint was granted.
5. On or about November 6, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the instant
matter in the United States District Court District of New
Jersey. (See, ECF #1 Complaint).
6. The substantive allegations in the dismissed New Jersey
Superior Court Complaint and the Complaint filed in the
District of New Jersey are identical, including the
allegations regarding the wrongful conduct of Lt. Hawthorne.
(See, Exhibit "2" State Court Complaint; and ECF #1
Complaint).
7. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their Complaint on three
occasions; however, the allegations regarding Lt. Hawthorne's
wrongful conduct remain the same, with some additional detail
having been added in the course of the amendments. (See, ECF
#1, #35, #52, #59 Initial Complaint and various Amended
Complaints).
8. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "Hawthorne
(who was considered to be aligned with management and Chief
DePaul and in the litigation control group for the Borough as
opposed to the union members) intercepted the December 7,
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 7 of 20
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 11 of 24 PageID: 2332
2009 confidential letter from Schlager. He [Hawthorne]
unethically and inappropriately placed the letter on the desk
of Kevin Yecco." (See, ECF #59 Amended Complaint, para. 25).
9. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "[t]he
unethical and inappropriate conduct of Hawthorne and DePaul
in providing a legal document (not intended for his eyes nor,
for certain, the eyes of the Borough's management team),
directly to the management team, including Defendant DePaul
and Mayer, was never sanctioned nor the subject of any
investigation." (See, ECF #59 Amended Complaint, para. 28).
10. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "Hunt had gone
to Dispatch and pulled the video from December 7, 2009 which
showed Hawthorne with the letter in hand. Hawthorne lied to
Hunt when he denied giving the letter to management." (See,
ECF #59 Amended Complaint, para. 29).
11. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "Hawthorne
later admitted that he did get the letter." (See, ECF #59
Amended Complaint, para. 30).
12. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "[o]n or about
January 29, 2010, Hunt was in the process of checking roll
call in the squad room, while working dayshift, when Hawthorne
entered the room. Hawthorne walked over to the sign in sheet
where Hunt was sitting and said to Hunt, 'It's a shame that
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 8 of 20
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 12 of 24 PageID: 2333
we have to hate each other.' Hunt replied, 'It's a shame some
people have to think that way.' Hawthorne then threatened
Hunt by stating, 'Last man standing buddy.' Feeling
threatened by Hawthorne's comments, Hunt prepared a
memorandum documenting the conversation and submitted it to
Captain Bradley (copy to Yecco)." (See, ECF #59 Amended
Complaint, para. 43).
13. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that Hawthorne was
in charge of the Detective Bureau, bore a "grudge" against
Plaintiff and, with the encouragement of the Borough of
Wildwood Crest, Hawthorne monitored Plaintiff, reported on
Plaintiff's activities and retaliated against Plaintiff.
(See, ECF #59 Amended Complaint, para. 58-59).
14. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "Gorski and
Hawthorne, apparently concerned that the union contract
committee would not negotiate salary and benefits to their
liking, concocted a story that Hunt had intimidated Gorski
into an attempt to sign the Petition. Hawthorne filed an
official report even though he had no first-hand knowledge of
the telephone conversation between Hunt and Gorski while off
duty and in the privacy of their respective homes." (See, ECF
#59 Amended Complaint, para. 62).
15. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that Hawthorne
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 9 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 13 of 24 PageID: 2334
"belittled" Plaintiff during a meeting on or about February
4, 2010. (See, ECF #59 Amended Complaint, para. 68).
16. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that on or about
January 3, 2011, Lt. Hawthorne handed Plaintiff a note
informing Plaintiff that he had not qualified for his weapon
and until he did qualify he was to either change into civilian
clothes and work administrative tasks or expend accrued time
which was an attempt to "maliciously embarrass" Plaintiff.
(See, ECF #59 Amended Complaint, para. 92, 96).
17. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "Hawthorne
wrote a report regarding the firearms and gun incident above.
The Chief ordered Hawthorne to re-write the report and omit
critical information, then questioned Hunt about the incident
in an Internal Affairs interview. When Hunt relayed what
actually happened in his exchange with Hawthorne, the Chief
charged Hunt with untruthfulness (because Hunt relayed the
information that was ordered to be omitted in Hawthorne's
report) thereby manipulating the internal affairs
investigation process in an untruthful manner to set up Hunt
for disciplinary charges." (See, ECF #59 Amended Complaint,
para. 97).
18. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that after
Plaintiff was terminated, he was ordered to return certain
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 10 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 14 of 24 PageID: 2335
equipment items to the Borough of Wildwood Crest Police
Department, but Plaintiff did not want to return the items
himself, as Plaintiff was "banned" from entering any private
areas of the police station, and he felt having to be at the
station under that condition was a further attempt by the
Defendants to humiliate him. (See, ECF #59 Amended Complaint,
para. 128-29).
19. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "Hunt, through
counsel, had a third party legal representative (paralegal)
deliver all items which were packaged and secured safely in
boxes to Defendant Hawthorne at the police department.
Hawthorne maliciously and purposefully refused to accept the
police items so that he and the Defendants could continue to
charge Hunt with manufactured disciplinary charges. Hawthorne
cowardly refused to meet the legal representative at the
police station and instead sent an underling to deliver his
message that he would arrest the legal representative
(paralegal) for delivering police issued equipment (that were
secured and packaged and which were demanded by the police
department to be returned to them) (and for which the
Defendants refused to pick up at Hunt's home or accept
delivery and receipt of same). The conduct of Hawthorne was
outrageous and reprehensible." (See, ECF #59 Amended
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 11 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 15 of 24 PageID: 2336
Complaint, para. 129).
20. The most recent Amended Complaint alleges that "[s]hortly
after the intimidation tactics of Hawthorne upon the
paralegal (threatened to have her arrested; it should be noted
that the paralegal's husband is a police officer in good
standing), Blaney called and spoke to the paralegal and
apologized for the conduct of Hawthorne. This admission
establishes that Hawthorne and Defendants collectively have
acted, at all times, despicably and in a retaliatory vengeance
against Hunt in violation of the law for which Hawthorne,
DePaul and Mayer have all sworn to uphold." (See, ECF #59
Amended Complaint, para. 131).
21. Recently, it has come to the Defendants' attention that
Plaintiff's counsel, Michel J. Douglas, Esquire, is now
currently representing Lt. Michael Hawthorne in other
matters. (See, Exhibit "3" May 8, 2015, Order in Paff v. Cape
May County Prosecutor's Office, No. CPM-L-265-14).
22. As a result of the Paff matter, certain pre-brady letters
resulting from the investigation into Lt. Hawthorne's off the
grid investigation of Defendants DePaul and Mayer were deemed
public documents.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A lawyer has standing to make a motion to disqualify opposing
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 12 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 16 of 24 PageID: 2337
counsel where the lawyer believes opposing counsel has violated
the Rules of Professional Conduct. Century Indem. Co. v. Congoleum
Corp. (In re Congoleum Corp.), 426 F.3d 675, 686-87 (3d Cir. 2005).
"The District Court's local rules provide that the rules of
American Bar Association, as revised by the New Jersey Supreme
Court, apply to attorneys practicing before the court 'subject to
such modifications as may be required or permitted by federal
statute, regulation, court rule or decision of law.'" Id. at 687
citing, Local Rule 103.1 (D.N.J.).
"In the absence of a 'definitive state court decision
interpreting the rules as promulgated by the [New Jersey] Supreme
Court, the federal court will proceed to reach its own conclusions
as to the appropriate application of the rules of professional
conduct." Id. A party seeking disqualification must meet a 'heavy
burden' of proof before a court will disqualify an attorney." Rohm
and Haas Co. v. American Cyanamid Co., 187 F. Supp. 2d 221, 226-
27 (D.N.J. 2001) "New Jersey courts engage in a 'painstaking
analysis of the facts' when addressing motions for
disqualification." Id., citing, Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., 109 N.J. 201, 205, 536 A.2d 243 (1988). However, "a person's
right to retain counsel of his or her choice is limited in that
there is no right to demand to be represented by an attorney
disqualified because of an ethical requirement." Dewey v. R.J.
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
Page 13 of 20
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 17 of 24 PageID: 2338
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 109 N.J. 201, 218, 536 A.2d 243 (1988)
citing, Reardon v. Marlayne, Inc., 83 N.J. 460, 477, 416 A.2d 852
(1980)).
"The underlying principle in considering motions to
disqualify counsel is safeguarding the integrity of the court
proceedings; the purpose of granting such motions is to eliminate
the threat that the litigation will be tainted." Lamb v. Pralex
Corp., 333 F. Supp. 2d 361, 363, 46 V.I. 213 (D.V.I. July 12, 2004)
(citing, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L.
Ed. 158 (1932)).
The most basic conflict of interest presented here is pursuant
to RPC 1.7(a) within the general rule of conflicts of interest.
Under that rule, "a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate
against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even
if it is wholly unrelated." State ex rel. S.G., 175 N.J. 132, 142
(2003); see also, RPC 1.7. In addition, the lawyer has a concurrent
conflict of interest where "there is a significant risk that the
representation of one or more clients will be materially limited
by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former
client, or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."
RPC 1.7(a)(2).
Given the factual background which can only be shorthand
described as "Defendant litigation control group member turned
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et at.
Page 14 of 20
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 18 of 24 PageID: 2339
Plaintiff adverse to Defendants represented by lawyer who
previously sued him and suddenly putative star witness supporting
allegations of conspiratorial retaliation against original
Plaintiff," if Ms. Douglass continues to represent Plaintiff Hunt
here, Ms. Douglass will be required, in Plaintiff Hunt's interests,
to set forth proofs that when Lt. Hawthorne participated in the
litigation control group in the prosecution of administrative
disciplinary charges against Hunt, Hawthorne was lying and playing
along with an illegal conspiracy to get Hunt fired as set forth in
the Hunt Complaint. We hope it is immediately clear that taking
this position with respect to Lt. Hawthorne's role in the Hunt
matter would negatively impact the credibility of Hawthorne's
allegations in Hawthorne's own suit against Wildwood Crest, which
Hawthorne has vowed will be brought by Ms. Douglass on his behalf.
We also assert that R.P.C. 4.2 is implicated here, in that
Plaintiff's counsel is communicating now regularly as part of a
confidential attorney client relationship with Lt. Hawthorne, whom
she knows to have been represented by counsel, my firm, in the
underlying Hunt lawsuit and about matters directly to the Hunt
lawsuit while simultaneously representing Plaintiffs Hunt.
Finally, RPC 8.4 provides that it is professional conduct for
a lawyer to "engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice." Lt. Hawthorne's factual position as it
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 15 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 19 of 24 PageID: 2340
relates to Plaintiff Hunt's employment case and Lt. Hawthorne's
anticipated testimony has done an absolute about face, we believe
that much is entirely undisputed. Lt. Hawthorne has also received
a benefit from Plaintiff Hunt's counsel connected to his about
face in support of Plaintiff Hunt, in that he now has
representation from Ms. Douglass not only in a directly related
OPRA matter, but he has also obtained a benefit connected to the
change in his factual position and anticipated testimony in that
he now has a lawyer who vows to bring a civil suit on his behalf,
presumably a civil suit which Lt. Hawthorne believes he might
ultimately collect a judgment on.
Some aspect of the benefits which Lt. Hawthorne has come to
following and seemingly as a consequence of Hawthorne's perplexing
about face reversal on the issue of whether or not Sgt. Hunt was
terminated on legitimate disciplinary infractions, particularly
that he now has Ms. Douglass filing a lawsuit on his behalf, might
be fairly characterized as a "contingent" financial benefit.
Certainly nothing guarantees the Hawthorne suit will ultimately be
successful, especially where his own version of events starts from
his participation in an illegal conspiracy, but a contingent
benefit is a benefit nonetheless. As to the fact of his dismissal
as a defendant in the Hunt litigation, by contrast, there can be
no reasonable dispute but that Hawthorne received a significant,
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 16 of 20 1-lunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 20 of 24 PageID: 2341
material benefit from Plaintiff Hunt and Attorney Douglass in
connection with the about face of his testimony.
Certainly there is at a bare minimum and indisputable
appearance of impropriety. Plaintiff may predictably point out
that the "appearance of impropriety" was to some extent undermined
through New Jersey decisional law. The appearance of impropriety
standard, however, has only been undermined as a rule applicable
for purposes of disciplining an attorney, but the doctrine has not
been eliminated for purposes of considering disqualification
issues. In appropriate cases courts have continued to rely upon
and consider the appearance of impropriety in a given relationship.
See e.g. Haggerty v. Red Bank Borough Zoning Board of Adjustment,
385 N.J. Super. 501, 516-517 (App. Div. 2006).
In fact, in State v. Davis, 366 N.J.Super. 30, 44 (App. Div.
2004), decided after the effective date of the elimination of the
appearance of impropriety standard, the Appellate Division
specifically held that the standard was eliminated only as a basis
for attorney discipline. The limitation on the appearance of
impropriety standard as a basis for attorney discipline was
specifically held to provide no limitation on "the Court's
constitutional power over practice and procedure through which the
judiciary may control the conduct of attorneys in judicial
proceedings." Id., quoting, Administrative Determinations In
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Page 17 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND 64. JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 21 of 24 PageID: 2342
Response To The Report And Recommendation Of The Supreme Court
Commission On The Rules Of Professional Conduct, Commission
Comment, RPC 1.7.
This matter indeed presents a tangled web which cannot
reasonably be expected to be a common occurrence. It cannot be
every day that a sworn law enforcement officer vigorously
participates in another officer's termination case, gets sued by
the terminated officer over it, then flip flops and claims that
the entire termination was an illegal conspiracy of which he was
a part, gets dropped as a defendant in the initial lawsuit, and
then becomes represented in his own civil suit against the
remaining defendants. Given the uniqueness of the situation, it is
not surprising that we have been unable to find cases which neatly
parallel the situation factually. In addition to the general
appearance of impropriety, however, other case law generally
supports Ms. Douglass' disqualification here.
In Kaleta v. Clausi, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60879 (M.D.Pa.
April 29, 2013) for example as related to the instant matter, the
Court expressed concern for whether a client of an attorney is in
a position to have disclosed client confidences to an adverse
attorney, which the Court found "would militate in favor of
disqualification." Id. at *29- *30.
As the Third Circuit has explained, the Model Rules'
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Page 18 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 22 of 24 PageID: 2343
equivalent of R.P.C. 1.9 exists for the purpose of preventing "even
the potential that a former client's confidences and secrets may
be used against him," to maintain "public confidence in the
integrity of the bar," and to fulfill a client's rightful
expectation of "the loyalty of his attorney in the matter for which
he is retained." In re Corn Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, 748
F.2d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 1984).
In summary, Ms. Douglass' representation of Defendant's
former litigation control group member coincident with dropping
the suit against the former control group member and representing
him separately preparing to sue on his behalf creates an
impermissible conflict. As a consequence of the impermissible
conflict, Ms. Douglass should be disqualified from representing
Plaintiffs Hunt. There is no way to cure whatever attorney client
privileged communications have already been shared by Lt.
Hawthorne with Ms. Douglass which directly relate to the Hunt
matter. Even if Hawthorne claims not to have shared any such
confidences, he is an untruthful person whose word the remaining
defendants cannot be reasonably expected to accept. Hawthorne went
all along with the case assisting with the administrative
prosecution and with defense of the civil litigation, only to later
claim it was all a big illegal conspiratorial act of discrimination
and retaliation. After that, we posit the remaining defendants
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs Counsel Page 19 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et at.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 23 of 24 PageID: 2344
By: Todd J. Gelfand, Esqui e
Dated: May 20, 2015
cannot be faulted for not being willing to discuss that the
confidences shared with their counsel have not been disclosed by
Hawthorne to the attorney who is now about to sue them on
Hawthorne's behalf while still suing on Hunt's behalf.
As such, the remaining defendants ask the Court to disqualify
Ms. Douglass from further representation of Plaintiff Hunt in this
matter.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons articulated herein, it is respectfully
requested that the Court disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, Michelle
Douglas, Esquire, from representing Plaintiff in the instant
matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES a Professional Corporation
Brief in Support of Motion to Disqualify Plaintiff's Counsel Page 20 of 20 Hunt v Wildwood Crest, et al.
BARKER, GELFAND & JAMES • A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • VOORHEES, NEW JERSEY 08043
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 67-1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 24 of 24 PageID: 2345
My Rights Lawyers, LLC
Michelle J. Douglass, Esq. 424 Bethel Road Somers Point, NJ 08244 Phone 609 7883595 Facsimile 609 7883599 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Thomas J. Hunt and Barbara Hunt
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEYCAMDEN VICINAGE
THOMAS J. HUNT and BARBARA HUNT,
Plaintiffs,
vs. BOROUGH of WILDWOOD CREST, Mayor CARL GROON, Chief of Police THOMAS DEPAUL, Doctor GARY M. GLASS, individually and in their official capacities, JOINTLY , SEVERALLY and the ALTERNATIVE, and, INDEPENDENTLY,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:12cv06887JEIAMD
CERTIFICATION OF MICHAEL
HAWTHORNE
I, Michael Hawthorne, of full age and sound mind, do hereby certify as follows:
1. I make this certification in support of my position that I was never in a “litigation control
group” with Wildwood Crest, Thomas DePaul and David Mayer as I understand the
phrase to mean. I never had any decision making power, control or ability to influence
any act or decision that was made pertaining to Hunt’s disciplinary matter or civil
litigation. I was a sergeant at the time the disciplinary charges against Hunt were being
1
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 18 PageID: 2493
orchestrated (20102011) and became a lieutenant during the pendency of the disciplinary
action (September 2011).
2. In fact, I was considered to be just the opposite of someone who is “included” as part of a
“litigation control group” representative. I was adverse to the interests of DePaul and
Mayer who were in the “litigation control group” and whose actions were representative
of the Borough of Wildwood Crest.
3. As early as June 2007 I have been on the “outs” with Chief DePaul as a result of a failed
outside business venture we had together; we owned and operated a Carvel/Cinnabon
store. Thereafter, DePaul relegated me to his chauffeur requiring me to drive him to the
local meetings he attended; DePaul further harassed me by treating me so poorly within
the Department to the point that thenCaptain Bradley noticed and commented to me about
it regularly.
4. I am aware that the term “litigation control group” is defined by a rule of professional
conduct. I have read RPC 1.13. I do not fall within the definition of someone who is
within the litigation control group as it pertained to Tom Hunt’s disciplinary or litigation
matters. RPC 1.13 says:
(a) A lawyer employed or retained to represent an organization represents the organization as distinct from its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents. For the purposes of RPC 4.2 and 4.3, however, the organization's lawyer shall be deemed to represent not only the organizational entity but also the members of its litigation control group. Members of the litigation control group shall be deemed to include current agents and employeesresponsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organization's legal position in the matter whether or not in litigation, provided, however, that "significant involvement" requires involvement greater, and other than, the supplying of factual information or data respecting the matter. Former agents and employees who were members of the litigation control group shall presumptively be deemed to be represented in the matter by the organization's lawyer butmay at any time disavow said representation.
(b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the
organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the
2
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 18 PageID: 2494
representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law which reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. In determining how to proceed, the lawyer shall give due consideration to the seriousness of the violation and its consequences, the scope and nature of the lawyer's representation, the responsibility in the organization and the apparent motivation of the person involved, the policies of the organization concerning such matters and any other relevant considerations. Any measures taken shall be designed to minimize disruption of the organization and the risk of revealing information relating to the representation to persons outside the organization. Such measures may include among others:
(1) asking reconsideration of the matter; (2) advising that a separate legal opinion on the matter be sought for presentation to appropriate
authority in the organization; and (3) referring the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the
seriousness of the matter, referral to the highest authority that can act in behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law.
(c) When the organization's highest authority insists upon action, or refuses to take action, that is
clearly a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law which reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer may take further remedial action that the lawyer reasonably believes to be in the best interest of the organization. Such action may include revealing information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6 only if the lawyer reasonably believes that:
(1) the highest authority in the organization has acted to further the personal or financial interests of
members of that authority which are in conflict with the interests of the organization; and (2) revealing the information is necessary in the best interest of the organization. (d) In dealing with an organization's directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other
constituents, a lawyer shall explain the identity of the client when the lawyer believes that such explanation is necessary to avoid misunderstanding on their part.
(e) A lawyer representing an organization may also represent any of its directors, officers, employees,
members, shareholders or other constituents, subject to the provisions of RPC 1.7. If the organization's consent to the dual representation is required by RPC 1.7, the consent shall be given by an appropriate official of the organization other than the individual who is to be represented or by the shareholders.
(f) For purposes of this rule "organization" includes any corporation, partnership, association, joint
stock company, union, trust, pension fund, unincorporated association, proprietorship or other business entity, state or local government or political subdivision thereof, or nonprofit organization
3
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 18 PageID: 2495
5. I was not responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the
organization's legal position in the matter. DePaul and Mayer were responsible and
significantly involved in the determination of Wildwood Crest’s legal position as it
pertained to Tom Hunt. I was a sergeant at the time who made known my position that
while I was obligated to provide the fact information they sought, I was going to do so in a
truthful manner.
6. On August 29, 2011, September 23, 2011 and April 5, 2012 Defendants Groon and
DePaul filed disciplinary complaints against Hunt which led to his termination from
employment on April 5, 2012. Captain Mayer served Hunt with all three disciplinary
complaints. Exhibit E, August 29, 2011, September 23, 2011 and April 5, 2012
Preliminary Notices of Disciplinary Action
7. I supplied some factual data with regard to Hunt’s disciplinary matter. Period.
8. I did not have any say in the determination of the position adopted by the Borough
through Chief DePaul and Captain Mayer. I did not initiate the disciplinary action. I did
not draft the charges. I was not consulted in the drafting of the charges. After the
disciplinary complaints were served on Hunt, I disagreed with their position that
disciplinary measures were warranted against Hunt. I was involved as a fact witness and
made my disagreements known throughout the pendency of the disciplinary process
against Hunt.
9. I did not bring the disciplinary charges. I did not determine whether the charges were or
should have been brought against Hunt. I did not draft the disciplinary charges against
Hunt. My understanding is that the disciplinary charges were drafted by William Blaney at
4
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 18 PageID: 2496
the request of DePaul. The disciplinary charges were authorized and signed by Mayor Carl
Groon as the appointing authority. I had no role in the authorization of the disciplinary
charges against Hunt. Mayer served the charges on Hunt. I had no role in the service of the
disciplinary complaints on Hunt.
10. I was questioned by legal counsel William Blaney about my knowledge of the disciplinary
charges against Hunt in the presence of Chief DePaul and Captain Mayer so that they
could review, monitor and attempt to influence my testimony.
11. I assume that Blaney also questioned other fact witnesses about the allegations contained
in the three (3) sets of disciplinary charges against Hunt. I made it clear, however, that I
did not agree with what DePaul and Mayer wanted me to say and that I would testify
honestly and in the manner in which I believed the events to have occurred. This
infuriated DePaul and Mayer who would not speak to me for weeks on end.
12. DePaul was aware that Hunt and I did not get along. I think that we had a rocky
relationship because Hunt perceived me as competition for promotions and thought I was
friends with DePaul. After Hunt reported DePaul’s overtime violations, DePaul did
everything in his power to aggravate an already tense relationship between me and Hunt. I
think that Hunt was unaware of the bad relationship between DePaul and I. I think Hunt
assumed that me and DePaul were good friends and business partners.
13. Once Tom Hunt brought his lawsuit and named me, initially, as a defendant, I was
contacted by Joseph Scott of the Barker Law firm where Todd Gelfand works. I have
never met Todd Gelfand and I have never talked to him nor communicated with him. He
5
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 6 of 18 PageID: 2497
did not contact me at any time to determine if I ever had any control or responsibility over
the decision making process regarding Hunt’s disciplinary or litigation matters.
14. Joseph Scott was an attorney retained by the Joint Insurance to represent the governmental
defendants, the Borough of Wildwood Crest, Chief DePaul, Captain Mayer and myself
against the charges brought by Tom Hunt in the State Court lawsuit he filed in May 2012.
15. I did speak to Joseph Scott shortly after the State Court complaint was filed by Tom Hunt
which was in May or June 2012 to review the allegations of the Complaint. I explained to
Scott that most of the allegations by Hunt that were directed at DePaul and Mayer,
including my suspicions about the falsification of evidence against Hunt by DePaul and
Mayer were true. Mr. Scott told me that he believed that it would be best for me to obtain
my own attorney.
16. Later, DePaul told me that I would not be afforded an attorney through the Borough’s
insurance company, the Joint Insurance Fund, because it would not look good and that we
would need to present a “unified” front. I did not agree so I set out to retain legal counsel
on my own. I retained Alan Epstein, an attorney located in Philadelphia of the Spector,
Gadon & Rosen law firm.
17. Mr. Epstein did not need to file any response on my behalf in the State court action
because it was dismissed and I was never named as a defendant again. I believe that I
would not have been named as a defendant in the first place had Hunt knew and
understood that the actions for which he complained in his Complaint as it pertained to me
were actions, in reality, that were taken by me at the direction of the Chief; or, that were
not, in reality, how he perceived them to be.
6
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 7 of 18 PageID: 2498
18. I understand that Hunt simply did not have all of the facts in his possession at the time he
filed his Complaint. Had I been questioned by his legal counsel at the time, Hunt would
have learned that DePaul and Mayer went out of their way to orchestrate the disciplinary
charges against him in order to terminate his employment. The disciplinary appeal was
also dismissed so I never had the opportunity to testify in that proceeding either.
19. I believe that Ms. Douglass is the best attorney to represent me given the fact that she also
represents Thomas Hunt in this federal case. Ms. Douglass understands this convoluted
history and is familiar with the parties. I have asked her to join my case with that of
Hunt’s case since the facts are overlapping. 1
20. Hunt’s case and mine are also similar in that I too began to experience a pattern of
retaliatory disciplinary actions and was threatened with having to submit to a psychiatric
fitness for duty evaluation as an abusive retaliatory tactic. DePaul threatened to send me
for a psychiatric FFDE because I objected to a Memo that he and Mayer used against Hunt
in his disciplinary action because I suspected it was manufactured. DePaul stated that I
must be going “nuts” to think he would do something like that. (Evidently, neither I nor
Hunt are “nuts” because the memo was deemed by the Cape May County Prosecutor
sufficiently tainted that he issued a “Brady” letter against Mayer for the manufacturing of
it; and as to me for not coming forward sooner with my suspicions). It should be noted 2
1 My legal claims, however, are restricted to naming others, (not the Wildwood Crest because I entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Wildwood Crest), such as the Cape May County Prosecutor as Defendants for causing a “Brady” letter to issue to Mayor Groon and Chief DePaul in which Prosecutor Taylor asserted that I was untruthful in not disclosing (sooner) the falsification by Mayer and DePaul of documents to use against Hunt in the disciplinary proceeding. A “Brady” letter from the Prosecutor is the kiss of death to a police officer who is rendered useless in that he is prevented from testifying in any criminal matter because the Prosecutor provides the criminal defense attorney with evidence that the arresting officer has been untruthful and therefore his credibility is forever damaged.
2 In this case, Prosecutor Taylor made a determination about my truthfulness without ever talking to me or
affording me a hearing or any of the requisite due process rights associated with “Brady” determinations; and
7
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 8 of 18 PageID: 2499
that Hunt was in fact ordered to a psychiatric fitness for duty evaluation which formed the
basis of one of the three sets of disciplinary charges against him, to wit, “fitness for duty.”
21. My career as a police officer was ended, just like Hunt’s, after I reported and complained
about DePaul and Mayer misappropriating DV Grant money, stealing time and
manufacturing evidence against Tom Hunt in an effort to terminate his employment.
22. I therefore sought out and asked Ms. Douglass to represent me sometime in April 2015.
23. Ms. Douglass initially did not want to accept my case and would not talk to me. I was
looking for legal counsel in New Jersey who would be able to quickly understand the facts
and issues in my case. Mr. Epstein was not licensed to practice law in New Jersey but
agreed to represent me for purposes of providing employment law advice to guide me in
reporting the illegal conduct I suspected by DePaul and Mayer.
24. I also needed representation later on for purposes of representing my interests in the
disciplinary matter seeking my termination from employment and brought against me by
Wildwood Crest for having reported the wrongdoing within the Department. I therefore
hired David Meyer, Esq. Also, Meyer represented me initially in the lawsuit brought by
John Paff against the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office which sought to obtain the
investigatory documents I provided to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office.
moreover, the reason for these actions by Taylor was to eliminate me from the position of lieutenant to allow the promotion of his nephew Wildwood Crest Officer Lloyd.Officer Lloyd was indeed promoted. The conflict and ethical ramifications abound for Prosecutor Taylor. See,Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83 (1963)(Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops." Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity). Putting a label like “liar” to somebody, however, should require being able to prove that convincingly. Taylor’s unchecked application of the label “liar” on me was made without affording me notice and a hearing before he notified Wildwood Crest; Wildwood Crest in turn suspended me without pay and eventually pressured my termination from employment. It turns out, Taylor’s unchecked “Brady” determination was motivated by his desire to advance the promotional career of his nephew.
8
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 9 of 18 PageID: 2500
25. At the time I retained David Meyer, Esq. I did not know but I later learned that his wife
worked as the Executive Secretary for Cape May County Legal Counsel, James Arsenault,
Esq. who represents the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office. I believed that to be a
conflict and did not feel comfortable in maintaining an attorneyclient relationship with
Meyer in light of this fact.
26. I asked Alan Epstein to speak to Ms. Douglass on my behalf to better understand the
reason for my request that she represent me. After speaking to Mr. Epstein, Ms. Douglass
contacted me for purposes of vetting me to determine whether she would be ethically
permitted to undertake representation on my behalf.
27. Ms. Douglass wanted to make sure that there was not a conflict in representing me and
Mr. Hunt. She asked me whether I believed that I had ever been represented by any
attorney in the Hunt litigation. I stated that I was not represented by an attorney, including
Mr. William Blaney and Mr. Joseph Scott. Although Scott had apparently filed an Answer
on my behalf in the State court lawsuit, I advised Ms. Douglass that Mr. Scott told me to
get my own attorney due to the conflict presented by my position which was adverse to
the Borough. I explained that I also had no control or responsibility for the disciplinary
charges which were filed against Hunt and that the charges were the doings of Chief
DePaul and Captain Mayer. Grron simply signed off on the charges and would have had
no knowledge of any of the substantive allegations except for what he was told by DePaul.
28. By way of background, I was hired as a police officer for the Borough of Wildwood Crest,
where I live, in December 1989. I became a sergeant on the police department in May,
1999 and was again promoted in September 2011 to the rank of lieutenant. My career with
9
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 10 of 18 PageID: 2501
the Borough of Wildwood Crest Department was without blemish until disciplinary
charges were brought against me after I reported what I believed to be criminal
misconduct by Chief Thomas DePaul and Captain David Mayer.
29. On or about September 17, 2013 I went to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office to
report what I reasonably believed to be criminal conduct. On May 21, 2014 disciplinary
charges are brought against me by Wildwood Crest. On June 27, 2014 I entered into the
Settlement Agreement and Release with Wildwood Crest whereby all charges were
dismissed and I retired in good standing.
30. The fact is that I am not and never have been in the “litigation control group” on behalf of
Wildwood Crest but was, in reality, and continue to be in an adversarial position to
Defendants. A fact which was unbeknownst to Hunt and Ms. Douglass until
approximately a little more than one month ago.
31. Mr. Gelfand is also without personal knowledge about the nature of the actual role and
relationship between myself and the Defendants Wildwood Crest, DePaul and David
Mayer. This is so because Gelfand has not been the attorney of record until recently in this
civil litigation filed by Hunt for his wrongful termination from employment. Joseph Scott
also of the Barker Law Firm, was the predecessor attorney in the civil litigation on behalf
of the Defendants before he retired from the practice of law and left the Barker Law Firm.
32. Mr. Scott attempted to interview me regarding the subject of Hunt’s State lawsuit but
when he discovered that I was adverse to his client’s position and always had been, he
immediately advised me to seek other legal counsel.
10
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 11 of 18 PageID: 2502
33. I did seek other legal counsel but before that attorney could enter an appearance on my
behalf, the State lawsuit was dismissed in 2012 and apparently moved to Federal Court
which did not include me nor Mayer as named Defendants.
34. Gelfand obviously also lacks a firm understanding of what my intentions are with regard
to pursuing civil litigation against Wildwood Crest because he was not an attorney
representing any party in the Paff (OPRA) litigation before the New Jersey Superior
Court nor was he ever present during any of those proceedings before the Honorable
Nelson B. Johnson, J.S.C. I also have never talked to the man.
35. On April 21, 2015 Ms. Douglass filed a substitution of attorney on behalf of me in the
case, John Paff v. Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office, Docket No.: ATLL26514; an
action filed by concerned citizen, John Paff, under the Open Public Records Act and the
common law right to access of government records.
36. Paff sought the disclosure from the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office of documents
that related to an internal affairs complaint and subsequent investigation initiated by
Hawthorne into alleged criminal conduct by DePaul and Mayer.
37. On May 8, 2015 I attended oral argument with Ms. Douglass on the Paff Order to Show
Cause application. I heard Ms. Douglass respond to a question by Judge Johnson
indicating that I was going to be filing a lawsuit. The identities of the intended defendants
and the type of cause of action was not addressed. I am not understanding how it is that
Mr. Gelfand, who was not present at thePaff Order to Show Cause hearing, jumped to the
11
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 12 of 18 PageID: 2503
conclusion that I intend to file suit against Wildwood Crest. I do intend to file suit but not
against the Borough of Wildwood Crest. 3
38. In March 2014 Hunt was called to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office to answer
questions as part of an investigation that was initiated by me into alleged criminal
wrongdoing by DePaul and Mayer.
39. In or about April 2015 I contacted Ms. Douglass to request representation in the action
filed in Cape May County Superior Court filed by John Paff. Paff is a wellknown
citizen’s activist and advocate for Open Government having filed more than 700 Open
Public Records Act requests Paff sought disclosure of the internal affairs complaint filed
by Hawthorne and all of the related investigatory materials in the possession of the Cape
May County Prosecutor’s Office.
40. For instance, Hunt thought that I took a confidential letter all on my own to the Chief who
then turned it over to Business Administrator Kevin Yecco during tense union contract
negotiations that were happening around December 2009. At the time of the contract
union negotiations of which Hunt was the lead negotiator, PBA Local 59 attorney, Chuck
Schlager prepared a letter addressed to Mr. Richard D’Amico, Jr., Unit Representative.
The letter set forth confidential strategy regarding the union’s responses to the Borough’s
contract proposals as well as insight by Schlager regarding the proposed contract by the
union. The letter was intercepted but Hunt believed that it was me who independently
3 I resigned from employment as a lieutenant of the Borough of Wildwood Crest Police Department in June 2014 as part of a negotiated settlement agreement whereby Hawthorne released his civil claims against the Borough of Wildwood Crest. This fact too must not be known to Gelfand since he was not the attorney representing the Borough of Wildwood Crest or any of the parties in that underlying matter. Gelfand’s ignorance of the Hawthorne Settlement Agreement and Release provides the only reasonable explanation as to his erroneous assumption and proffer to this Court that Hawthorne will have his “own suit against Wildwood Crest.”
12
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 13 of 18 PageID: 2504
intercepted the letter from the fax machine and gave it to DePaul.ECF Doc. No. 59, ¶ 25
Not so. I was handed the letter by clerk Jim Bailey who retrieved it from the Department’s
fax machine. I did not know its contents. The Chief took it from me and gave it to Yecco.
Afterwards, DePaul apologized to me and told me that it made me look like an “as*hole”
in front of the men.
41. Also, there are allegations in Hunt’s Complaint regarding the January 2011 retrieval of
Hunt’s service weapon, which is also factually incorrect in that it was not me who
instigated any of it. In actuality and what Hunt did not know at the time he filed his
Amended Complaint (in February 2015), was that I strongly disagreed with and objected
to Mayer’s memo to Hunt about turning over his service weapon. DePaul became furious
with me and would not speak to me for weeks. DePaul ordered me to revise my original
report several times and each time I objected but I complied fearing insubordination
charges. After this, we. constantly argued about actions that I thought were retaliatory
against Hunt.
42. The above and other facts as alleged in Hunt’s Complaint as it pertains to me were based
on Hunt’s perception, albeit mistaken perception as it turns out, that I was participating
with DePaul and Mayer. The bad acts as alleged by Hunt in his Complaint occurred, but
those bad acts were at the direction and instigation of DePaul and Mayer, not me. I
thought then and I think now that DePaul and Mayer were purposefully retaliating against
Hunt because Hunt publicly disclosed the overtime violations and the Chief keeping two
sets of time and attendance books during the contract negotiations.
13
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 14 of 18 PageID: 2505
43. In early 2012, I also began to notice other improprieties such as fraudulent use of grant
money that was intended for Domestic Violence use, not to be used as a personal slush
fund of Mayer. I was not going to participate in any cover ups and I informed Mayer of 4
this as well as telling him that I was no longer going to serve as the chauffeur for he and
DePaul so that they could get intoxicated while attending meetings.
44. Shortly afterwards, I got called into Mayer’s office by DePaul and in Mayer’s presence,
DePaul threatened me by saying he controlled my enrollment to the FBI Leeda Training.
DePaul was so angry he was spitting at the mouth screaming at me that I had no business
complaining about anything. DePaul advised me that if it was a mistake that I had become
a Lieutenant, he could fix that because he was “great at fixing things” and said “look what
I did to Hunt.” DePaul told me that if I wanted to take him on, he’s ready because he has
“enough time to retire but you don’t.” DePaul ended the meeting by ripping up the FBI
Training paperwork for me and telling me never to question the Domestic Violence Grant
again and walked out of the office.
45. It was about this time that William Blaney, attorney for Wildwood Crest for purposes of
prosecuting the disciplinary charges against Hunt, began to have meetings with me to
review the charges about the matters I was involved. The prep meetings took place in the
presence of DePaul and Mayer. DePaul and Mayer wanted to hear what I had to say about
the charges because they did not trust me, not because I was in their “litigation control
group.”
4 Hunt also suspected Mayer to be misappropriating the DV Grant monies and reported same to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office and the Federal Justice Department. Exhibit B
14
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 15 of 18 PageID: 2506
46. I was certainly well aware that I was not a part of any decision making process as it
pertained to management let alone as it pertained to the disciplinary process against Hunt.
During the prep meetings, I was frequently interrupted by argumentative outbursts by
DePaul because he was not happy with my factual recollections.
47. The disciplinary hearing for Hunt started on September 12, 2012 (unbeknownst to Hunt),
Mayer and I were not even talking at this time. I had also complained to DePaul that
Mayer was rarely in the office in the summer months although he was scheduled to work.
I saw Mayer working his fruit stand truck business many times in the summer months
when he was supposed to be at work and while he was on the clock for the Borough.
48. DePaul barely talked to me except in an attempt to influence my testimony against Hunt. 5
We were constantly fighting. I think that I was on the verge of a nervous breakdown and
thought my career would soon be over because I was not going to lie.
49. Contrary to Gelfand’s supposition, I was not “one of the three police administrators who
directed the investigation and prosecution of administrative disciplinary charges against
Plaintiff Sgt. Hunt.” (Def. Br. 34).
50. It is true that that I began an “investigation of Defendants DePaul and Mayer” because I
suspected they were engaging in illegal conduct and I wanted to secure proof of it.
Gelfand claims that the investigation by me was “unauthorized” but he doesn’t even
consider the fact that the Wildwood Crest Police Department, as small as it was, did not
have an internal affairs investigation division and that investigations would have to be all
“authorized” by the Chief or Captainthe very men I suspected of wrongdoing. It makes
5 I never testified in the disciplinary proceeding because it was terminated by the withdrawal from the Office of Administrative Law and the Civil Service Commission.
15
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 16 of 18 PageID: 2507
little sense to portray my investigation as an “offthe grid” illegitimate investigation when
I was attempting to carefully secure proof in order to legitimately take my concerns to an
outside agency.
51. I can only be considered as adverse to the goal and interests of DePaul and Mayer who
were the sole perpetrators of the disciplinary action against Hunt.
52. The Borough of Wildwood Crest does not nor should not have any real reason to believe
that any “confidences” were shared with me because they did not share any confidences.
Instead, I was asked to participate in a disciplinary proceeding against Hunt they brought
against him. I made abundantly clear that I was not a part of their game plan when I
objected to their requests to change my recollections, and, eventually I gathered up enough
evidence and went to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office to report DePaul and
Mayer for criminal wrongdoing.
53. Even more insulting, bordering on purposeful misrepresentation to this Court, is the
assertion that I participated in the Hunt civil litigation as part of the “litigation control
group.” I met with Joseph Scott, the attorney retained on behalf of the Joint Insurance
Fund to represent collectively the Borough of Wildwood Crest, Groon, DePaul, Mayer and
Hawthorne in the civil litigation by Hunt initially filed in the State Court. At the time, I
conveyed my thoughts to Scott that DePaul and Mayer were wrong and many of the
allegations by Hunt were accurate.
54. At that point, Scott advised Hawthorne that he needed to obtain other counsel.Idid indeed
obtain other counsel but not before the State Court action was dismissed. Groon as the 6
6 I retained attorney Alan Epstein from Philadelphia for advice after I went to the Cape May County Prosecutor with reports of criminal wrongdoing by DePaul, and Mayer. I later retained David Meyer, Esq. to represent me with regard to the disciplinary action against me that came out my going to the Cape May County Prosecutor and
16
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 17 of 18 PageID: 2508
Michael Hawthorne
agency.
Mayor and DePaul as the Chief of Police are the policymakers for the Borough of
Wildwood Crest, not me-as is obvious by their ousting me too from my job for not
participating in their plan to wrongfully terminate Hunt and engaging in what I believed
to be criminal conduct in misusing government grant moneys intended for a domestic
violence program, stealing time and manufacturing fabricated evidence against Hunt.
I certify that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and if any statements are
willfully false, I may be subject to punishment.
Date: May 27, 2015
for the Paff v. Cape May County Prosecutor's Office, Order to Show Cause OPRA challenge. I terminated my relationship with attorney Meyer after I learned that Meyer's wife was the direct secretary to Cape May County Counsel and Meyer failed to immediately disclose this to me. Thereafter, I contacted attorney Michelle Douglass to represent my interests in the Paff matter.
17
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68-2 Filed 05/28/15 Page 18 of 18 PageID: 2509
My Rights Lawyers, LLC
Michelle J. Douglass, Esq. 424 Bethel Road Somers Point, NJ 08244 Phone 609 7883595 Facsimile 609 7883599 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Thomas J. Hunt and Barbara Hunt
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEYCAMDEN VICINAGE
THOMAS J. HUNT and BARBARA HUNT,
Plaintiffs,
vs. BOROUGH of WILDWOOD CREST, Mayor CARL GROON, Chief of Police THOMAS DEPAUL, Doctor GARY M. GLASS, individually and in their official capacities, JOINTLY , SEVERALLY and the ALTERNATIVE, and, INDEPENDENTLY,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:12cv06887JEIAMD
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
STATEMENT TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
COUNSEL
POSITION STATEMENT
Defendants’ counsel argues for the disqualification of Plaintiff’s counsel citing to R.P.C.
1.7 (a)(2), 4.2 (and implicitly 1.13) and 8.4 (d). The Defense makes a number of conclusions not
supported by fact in a rush to remove Plaintiff’s counsel. Motions to disqualify must be viewed
with a wary eye to prevent abuse as a litigation tactic. See, 40TH ABA NATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY; american barconference on
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 2465
professional responsibility; FoleyCiccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condo. Ass’n, 797 N.W.2d 789,
804 (Wis. 2011) (Motions to disqualify could be used as a litigation tactic).
The R.P.C.s Called Into Question By Defense Counsel
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ counsel must be disqualified from representing the
Hunts in this case because of her recent entry of representation of Michael Hawthorne
(Hawthorne). Hawthorne, Defendants loosely claim, was part of the “litigation control group”
for the organization (Borough of Wildwood Crest) with respect to the disciplinary action and
civil litigation by Hunt in this case, and as such, Plaintiffs’ counsel is conflicted out of continued
representation of Plaintiffs in this case pursuant to R.P.C. 1.7(a) (2), 4.2 and 8.4(d).
RPC 1.7 (a) (2) provides:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation
involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially
limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or by a
personal interest of the lawyer.
RPC 4.2. provides:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation
with a person the lawyer knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, to be
represented by another lawyer in the matter, including members of an organization's litigation
control group as defined by RPC 1.13, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer, or
is authorized by law or court order to do so, or unless the sole purpose of the communication is
to ascertain whether the person is in fact represented. Reasonable diligence shall include, but not
1
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 25 PageID: 2466
be limited to, a specific inquiry of the person as to whether that person is represented by counsel.
Nothing in this rule shall, however, preclude a lawyer from counseling or representing a member
or former member of an organization's litigation control group who seeks independent legal
advice.
R.P.C. 1.13 defines “litigation control group” as follows:
Members of the litigation control group shall be deemed to include current agents and employees
responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organization's legal position
in the matter whether or not in litigation, provided, however, that "significant involvement"
requires involvement greater, and other than, the supplying of factual information or data
respecting the matter.
R.P.C. 8.4 (d) provides:
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Plaintiffs’ counsel breached none of the above rules as argued by Defense counsel.
The representation of the Hunts and Hawthorne does not pose a “significant risk” that
such representation will “materially” limit counsel’s responsibilities to either client (both of
whom have consented to the dual representation) nor to a third party. Hawthorne is not and never
has been in the Defendants’ “litigation control group” and is therefore someone with whom
Plaintiff’s counsel may communicate and represent. Finally, the representation of the Hunts and
Hawthorne is not prejudicial to the administration of justice. Indeed, the representation of the
Hunts and Hawthorne is beneficial to the administration of justice in that the alignment of their
respective interests is bound to efficiently produce the disclosure of ultimate justice: the truth.
2
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 25 PageID: 2467
Litigation Tactic, Defense Counsel’s Ignorance of the Facts Prevents Disqualification
The filing of this motion without a proper factual predicate calls into question the good
faith of Defense counsel and highlights the question of motive: litigation tactic? Defendants’
counsel postulates without proof that Michael Hawthorne was in the “litigation control group.”
Defendants’ counsel also erroneously assumes that Hawthorne is going to bring a lawsuit
against the Borough of Wildwood Crest. These faulty statements by Defense counsel might be
explained by the fact that Mr. Gelfand was not the counsel of record for Defendants for any part
of the preceding administrative disciplinary matter against Thomas Hunt (Hunt).
Mr. Gelfand actually has no fact information to credibly support his argument that
Hawthorne was in the “litigation control group” during the administrative proceedings which
were brought by Defendants Mayor Carl Groon (Groon) and Chief Thomas DePaul (DePaul),
not Hawthorne, against Thomas Hunt. Groon and DePaul were responsible for the termination of
Hunt’s employment, not Hawthorne. Hawthorne is not and never has been a member of the
Defendants’ “litigation control group” to terminate Hunt. Indeed, just the opposite is true.
The Defendants were represented by attorney William Blaney, not Gelfand, for the
prosecution of the administrative disciplinary charges against Hunt. The fact is that Hawthorne 1
was not and never was in the “litigation control group” with respect to the disciplinary action,but
was, in reality, and continues to be in an adversarial position to Defendants. A fact which was
1 On October 29, 2012 Plaintiff withdrew his disciplinary appeal from the Office of Administrative Law in order to pursue his claims in toto through civil litigation in order to gain the benefit of the full panoply of civil litigation discovery processes such as depositions, not typically afforded to parties in administrative disciplinary proceedings and due to a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision which seemed, at the time, to warrant the joining of all related claims in one forum.See, Winters v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, decided September 13, 2012, 212 N.J. 67 (2012). In February 2013 Defendants filed an appeal with the New Jersey Appellate Court challenging Plaintiff’s decision to withdraw from the administrative forum. In December 2014, the New Jersey Appellate Court rejected Defendants’ challenge. Plaintiff was thereafter permitted to resume his civil litigation against Defendants in this Court. See ECF Doc. No. 53, 54
3
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 25 PageID: 2468
unbeknownst to Hunt and the undersigned until approximately a little more than one month ago.
Exhibit A, Hawthorne Certification and Exhibit B, Hunt Certification. This point will be
explored more fully below.
Mr. Gelfand (Gelfand) is also without personal knowledge about the nature of the actual
role and relationship between Hawthorne and the Defendants Wildwood Crest, DePaul and
David Mayer (Mayer). This is so because Gelfand has not been the attorney of record in either
the administrative disciplinary matter or the civil litigation brought by Hunt challenging his
termination from employment. It was not until recently that Gelfand undertook representation of
the Defendants in this civil litigation filed by Hunt for his wrongful termination from
employment as a police officer with an unblemished twenty one year career with the Borough of
Wildwood Crestuntil he spoke out against Chief DePaul’s violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). Joseph Scott also of the Barker Law Firm, was the predecessor attorney in the civil
litigation on behalf of the Defendants before he retired from the practice of law and left the
Barker Law Firm. Exhibit A, Certification of Hawthorne.
Contrary to Gelfand’s assertion, his firm does not represent Hawthorne. Indeed,
Gelfand’s law firm had no business at any time representing Hawthorne nor for that matter,
should Gelfand’s law firm be representing DePaul and Mayer in this case. Hawthorne made
known to Mr. Scott that he was adverse to the interests of Defendants in terminating Hunt’s
employment. Hawthorne also made clear to Mr. Scott that he was not in agreement with
Defendants’ litigation position and that he believed that they were not justified, legally, in
terminating Hunt’s position. Exhibit A.
4
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 25 PageID: 2469
It has of late also become blatantly evident that DePaul and Mayer, whom Hawthorne
claims fabricated evidence against Hunt with regard to the disciplinary charges against Hunt, are 2
in an adverse position to the Borough of Wildwood Crest.SeeR.P.C. 1.13 (b)(If a lawyer for an
organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is
engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is
a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law which reasonably
might be imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial injury to the
organization, the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the
organization. In determining how to proceed, the lawyer shall give due consideration to the
seriousness of the violation and its consequences, the scope and nature of the lawyer's
representation, the responsibility in the organization and the apparent motivation of the person
involved, the policies of the organization concerning such matters and any other relevant
considerations. Any measures taken shall be designed to minimize disruption of the organization
and the risk of revealing information relating to the representation to persons outside the
organization.)
The facts here precluded,unequivocally, Mr. Scott (Scott) and Gelfand’s law firm from
representing Hawthorne. Scott attempted to interview Hawthorne regarding the subject of this
lawsuit when he discovered that Hawthorne was adverse to his client’s position and always had
2 The Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office has also apparently determined that Mayer fabricated evidence against Hunt and has issued a “Brady”letter against Mayer.A “Brady” letter from the Prosecutor is the kiss of death to a police officer who is rendered useless in that he is prevented from testifying in any criminal matter because the Prosecutor provides the criminal defense attorney with evidence that the arresting officer has been untruthful and therefore his credibility is forever damaged.
See, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)(Police officers who have been dishonest are sometimes referred to as "Brady cops." Because of the Brady ruling, prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law enforcement official involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in an official capacity). Mayer was permitted to resign and avoided disciplinary charges against him.
5
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 6 of 25 PageID: 2470
been. Scott immediately advised Hawthorne to seek other legal counsel. Exhibit A, Hawthorne
Certification.
Hawthorne did seek other legal counsel but before that attorney could enter an
appearance on Hawthorne’s behalf, the State lawsuit was moved to Federal Court by way of
motion. Exhibit A. The newly filed Federal lawsuit did not include Hawthorne nor Mayer who
were both previously named Defendants in the State Court lawsuit. See ECF Doc. No. 35; 3
Defendants’ Exhibit “2”
Finally, Gelfand obviously also lacks a firm understanding of what Hawthorne’s
intentions are with regard to pursuing civil litigation against Wildwood Crest because he was not
an attorney representing any party in the Paff(OPRA) litigation before the New Jersey Superior
Court nor was he ever present during any of those proceedings before the Honorable Nelson B.
Johnson, J.S.C.
On April 21, 2015 the undersigned filed a substitution of attorney on behalf of
Hawthorne in that case (John Paff v. Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office, Docket No.:
ATLL26514; an action filed by concerned citizen, John Paff, under the Open Public Records
Act and the common law right to access of government records). Exhibit C, April 21, 2015
Substitution of Attorney by Michelle J. Douglass, Esq. to replace David Meyer, Esq.Paff sought
the disclosure from the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office of documents that related to an
internal affairs complaint and subsequent investigation initiated by Hawthorne into alleged
criminal conduct by DePaul and Mayer. Exhibit A, Hawthorne Certification
3 Gelfand insinuates that Hawthorne was dropped as Defendants when the State court case was dismissed to file in Federal court in exchange for his becoming a witness for Hunt. Not true. Both defendants, Hawthorne and Mayer were dropped upon the filing of the Federal lawsuit.ECF Doc. No.1. Hunt dismissed the defendants he believed were not the policymakers for the Borough of Wildwood Crest in order to reduce the number of named defendants.Exhibit B, Hunt Certification
6
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 7 of 25 PageID: 2471
On May 8, 2015 at oral argument on the Paff Order to Show Cause application, the
undersigned, as an aside, indicated to Judge Johnson simply that litigation was going to be taken
by Hawthorne. Exhibit A. The identities of the intended defendants and the type of cause of
action was not addressed.Exhibit A. Yet, despite the fact that Gelfand was not present at thePaff
Order to Show Cause hearing, he asserts that he learned of the comment made by the
undersigned from an undisclosed source; he thereafter quickly jumped to the conclusion that
Hawthorne intends to file suit against Wildwood Crest. Gelfand is wrong in his assumption.
Hawthorne does intend to file suit but not against the Borough of Wildwood Crest. 4
Defense counsel invests much energy pointing out the complexities of this case using
descriptors such as “tortured procedural history” and “tangled web of conflict” which is highly
indicative of his apparent misunderstanding of the facts and which lends itself to further
explanation for his unsupported and faulty conclusions that Hawthorne was a member of the
“litigation control group” and about Hawthorne’s “own suit against Wildwood Crest.” (Def. Br.
8)
PROCEDURAL STATEMENT
Procedural Facts Pertinent to the Defense Disqualification Motion
On April 5, 2012 Hunt was terminated from employment with Wildwood Crest. ECF
Doc. No. 35
4 Hawthorne resigned from employment as a lieutenant of the Borough of Wildwood Crest Police Department in June 2014 as part of a negotiated settlement agreement whereby Hawthorne released his civil claims against the Borough of Wildwood Crest. Exhibit A. This fact too must not be known to Gelfand since he was not the attorney representing the Borough of Wildwood Crest or any of the parties in that underlying matter. Gelfand’s ignorance of the Hawthorne Settlement Agreement and Release provides the only reasonable explanation as to his erroneous assumption and proffer to this Court that Hawthorne will have his “own suit against Wildwood Crest.”
7
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 8 of 25 PageID: 2472
On May 11, 2012 Hunt filed a lawsuit in State Court for alleged illegal termination from
employment. (Defendants’ Exhibit “2”)
In September 2012 through October 2012 the administrative appeal on the disciplinary
charges against Hunt started and was underway. On October 29, 2012 Hunt withdrew the
disciplinary appeal. Exhibit D, October 29, 2013 withdrawal letter.
On November 6, 2012 Hunt filed his Complaint in Federal Court pursuant to Court Order
permitting the dismissal of the State Court action and transfer to Federal Court. ECF Doc. No. 1
On February 22, 2013 Defendants filed an appeal with the New Jersey Superior Court
appealing from the New Jersey Civil Service Commission Order permitting Plaintiff to withdraw
his disciplinary appeal in order to pursue all claims in one forum, to wit, Federal Court.Exhibit
D, February 22, 2013 Notice of Appeal
On March 21, 2013 Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and to State the Federal lawsuit
pending the outcome of the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate action. ECF Docs. Nos. 13, 14
On August 6, 2013 Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF Doc. No. 23
On October 10, 2013 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF Doc. No 35
On December 20, 2013 the Court entered an Order dismissing this case without prejudice
pending the outcome of the New Jersey Superior Court Appeal. ECF Doc. No. 45
On December 22, 2014 Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen this Federal action. ECF Doc.
No. 53
On January 21, 2015 the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the
case. ECF Doc.No. 54
8
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 9 of 25 PageID: 2473
On February 27, 2015 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint based on newly discovered
information and added Captain David Mayer back into the litigation as a named party Defendant.
The new fact allegations that Hunt had learned as a result of being interviewed by the Cape May
County Prosecutor’s Office are contained in the Amended Complaint at paragraphs 44 through 5
54 and are as follows:
viii. The January 23, 2010 Manufactured Memo; DePaul and Mayer Engage in the Creation of False Evidence; Cape May County Prosecutor Later Conducts an Investigation Regarding the Memo and Determines Mayer to be Untruthful
44.) In or about 2010, the Borough Defendants determined that Hunt would
not be permitted to return to his assignment as the School Resource Officer (“SRO”). Later, Defendant Mayer asserted to Dr. Glass, as part of an FFDE in which the Defendants ordered Hunt to attend, that Hunt had been removed as the SRO as part of a disciplinary action in order to paint a picture, falsely, that Hunt had a troubled history.
45.) DePaul and Mayer manufactured a memo dated January 23, 2010,
which contains the name of Captain Bradley as the author. In fact, DePaul and Mayer are the authors of the memo and they falsified the date of the memo. The memo dated January 23, 2010 was not authored by Captain Bradley. It was prepared by DePaul and Mayer. The memo which is dated January 23, 2010 was actually created in 2011 in preparation for a disciplinary hearing against Hunt. It was intended to be used as (false) evidence in the hearing.
46.) The “January 23, 2010 Memo” was supposedly issued by Captain
Bradley purportedly because of “recent suspension” regarding the “Flynn matter” (as explained above).In July 2009, some six (6) months prior, the “Flynn incident” took place in which an internal affairs investigation notice was given to Hunt in December 2009. (Hunt received notice of an internal affairs investigation regarding the Flynn matter on December 18, 2009, was interviewed on January 19, 2010, issued a PNDA dated January 29, 2010 for the first time alerting him to a
5 On September 17, 2013 Hawthorne had filed a complaint with the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office alleging criminal conduct by DePaul and Mayer which also triggered an internal affairs investigation by the Borough of Wildwood Crest requiring Wildwood Crest to hire an outside private investigator by the name of James Fallon due to the allegations of wrongdoing against the Chief and Captain. An internal affairs investigation ensued.
9
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 10 of 25 PageID: 2474
possible 4 day suspension; and a FNDA dated March 18, 2010 imposing a 4 day suspension).
47.) The socalled July 2009 “Flynn incident” gave rise to a four (4) day
suspension in April 2010 against Hunt. Although two (2) other officers, including Flynn were involved in the arrest, no one other than Hunt was singled out for discipline. However, most important, is the fact that Captain Bradley could not have known, in January 2010, that Hunt had “recently received a suspension” regarding the July 2009 “Flynn incident” because Hunt had not been disciplined until April 2010.
48.) The January 23, 2010 memo was not an error in the date. Clearly, the
January 23, 2010 Memo did not contain a typographical error involving the year, that is, the memo was not prepared by Captain Bradley in January 2011, since Captain Bradley had opted to retire in November 2010 following his arrest for DUI in October 2010.
49.) Hunt has learned that the January 23, 2010 memo was a manufactured
and false piece of evidence against him through an investigation ultimately conducted by the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office (“CMCPO”) initiated by Lieutenant Hawthorne. Hawthorne reported that the memo was fake.
50.) On or about March 2014 the CMCPO initiated an investigation, inter
alia, the January 23, 2010 memo. 51.) Upon information and belief, the Cape May County Prosecutor
substantiated that the January 23, 2010 memo was a fraud and issued a “PreBrady” letter to Mayer. The PreBrady letter puts Mayer and the Wildwood Crest Police Department on notice that the CMCPO is required to provide any criminal defendant in a case in which Mayer is a witness, that it has found Mayer to be untruthful.
ix. Attorney Gelfand is a Witness as to the Falsified January 23, 2010
Memo 52.) During the investigation by the CMCPO, attorney Todd Gelfand was
requested to turn over certain discovery materials in this case to the CMCPO.
10
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 11 of 25 PageID: 2475
53.) In particular, Gelfand turned over a document that appears to be the same memo as dated January 23, 2010 with the exception of the date. The Gelfand memo is dated, however, January 29, 2010.
54.) It is believed that DePaul and Mayer fabricated yet another memo, this
time, dated January 29, 2010. Why? Because Defendants realized that the date on the initial memo, i.e., January 23, 2010, was not logical because there had not even been a suspension against Hunt for the Flynn incident until January 29, 2010. Recall, the January 23, 2010 Memo refers to a “recent” suspension regarding the Flynn incident.
ECF Doc.No. 59
In March 2014 Hunt was called to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office to answer
questions as part of an investigation that was initiated by Hawthorne into alleged criminal
wrongdoing by DePaul and Mayer. Exhibits A, B. Following Hunt’s interview in March 2014,
Todd Gelfand was asked to participate in the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office investigation
and to provide certain materials he had received from Defendants. Hunt was reinterviewed by
the Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office regarding a memo dated January 29, 2010 that was
provided by Gelfand to the Cape May County Prosecutor. In short, Hunt learned that there were
two (2) documents that were fabricated by DePaul and Mayer that fraudulently formed the basis
of disciplinary action against Hunt. Hawthorne had reported the Defendants’ manufacturing of
this evidence to the Cape May County Prosecutor in September 2013. Exhibits A, B
The Amended Complaint provides notice to attorney Gelfand that he is a witness in this
case.Nonetheless Gelfand chose to continue as counsel of record in this action and refiled the
motion for summary judgment that had been filed before the Order of Dismissal without
prejudice but which had never been reached or decided by the Court. ECF Doc No. 64
Thereafter, Gelfand filed this application.
11
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 12 of 25 PageID: 2476
In or about April 2015 Hawthorne contacted the undersigned’s office to request
representation in the action filed in Cape May County Superior Court filed by John Paff, a
wellknown citizen’s activist and advocate for Open Government having filed more than 700
Open Public Records Act requests See,
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/02/26/profilethemanwhomakessuregovernmentwork
srightoutintheopen/ Paff sought disclosure of the internal affairs complaint filed by
Hawthorne and all of the related investigatory materials in the possession of theCape May
County Prosecutor’s Office.
FACTUAL STATEMENT
Facts Pertinent to the Defense Disqualification Motion
On August 29, 2011, September 23, 2011 and April 5, 2012 Defendants Groon and
DePaul filed the disciplinary complaints against Hunt which led to his termination from
employment on April 5, 2012. Captain Mayer served Hunt with all three disciplinary complaints.
Exhibit E, August 29, 2011, September 23, 2011 and April 5, 2012 Preliminary Notices of
Disciplinary Action
As early as June 2007 Hawthorne had been on the “outs” with Chief DePaul as a result of
a failed outside business venture they had (they owned and operated a Carvel/Cinnabon store
together). Thereafter, DePaul made Hawthorne into his chauffeur requiring Hawthorne to drive
DePaul to the local meetings the Chief attended; DePaul further harassed Hawthorne by treating
him poorly within the Department to the point that thenCaptain Bradley noticed and commented
to Hawthorne about it regularly. Exhibit A
12
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 13 of 25 PageID: 2477
DePaul was aware that Hawthorne and Hunt did not get along. Exhibit A Hawthorne
attributes the rocky relationship to Hunt’s perception that he would not be given a fair
opportunity in the promotional context due to his perception that Hawthorne was a friend with
DePaul because of their business venture. Exhibit A Following Hunt’s disclosure of DePaul’s
illegal wage and hour practices in December 2009, DePaul did everything in his power to
aggravate an already tense relationship between Hawthorne and Hunt. Exhibit A Hunt was
unaware that DePaul and Hawthorne actually had a bad relationship.Exhibit B Hunt erroneously
assumed that some of the bad acts he complained of as asserted in his Complaint were the doings
of Hawthorne.
For instance, as alleged in Hunt’s Complaint, on December 7, 2009 at the time of the
contract union negotiations of which Hunt was the lead negotiator, PBA Local 59 attorney,
Chuck Schlager prepared a letter addressed to Mr. Richard D’Amico, Jr., Unit Representative.
ECF Doc. No. 59, ¶¶ 2430 The letter set forth confidential strategy regarding the union’s
responses to the Borough’s contract proposals as well as insight by Schlager regarding the
proposed contract by the union. ECF Doc. No. 59, ¶¶ 2430 The December 7, 2009 letter was
intended to provide legal guidance to D’Amico and the union contract negotiation committee for
the next scheduled contract negotiation session which was scheduled for December 18, 2009.
ECF Doc. No. 59, ¶¶ 2430 The letter was intercepted but Hunt believed that it was Hawthorne
who independently intercepted the letter from the fax machine and gave it to DePaul.ECF Doc.
No. 59, ¶ 25 Not so. Exhibit A Hawthorne was given the letter by Clerk Jim Bailey who
retrieved the letter from the fax machine. Exhibit A DePaul then grabbed the letter from
Hawthorne’s hands and delivered it Borough Administrator, Kevin Yecco.Exhibit A Hawthorne
13
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 14 of 25 PageID: 2478
did nothing wrong. DePaul did. DePaul knew the letter contained confidential information and
ethically he had the obligation to not read it, not use it and to return it to its intended recipient.
Exhibit A
Indeed, the allegations in Hunt’s Complaint regarding the January 2011 retrieval of
Hunt’s service weapon, also is incorrect in that it was not Hawthorne who instigated any of it.
ECF Doc. No. 59, ¶¶ 9297 In actuality and what Hunt did not know at the time he filed his
Amended Complaint (in February 2015), was that Hawthorne objected to Mayer’s memo to Hunt
about turning over the service weapon. Exhibit A DePaul became furious with Hawthorne and
would not speak to Hawthorne for weeks. Exhibit A DePaul ordered Hawthorne to revise his
original report several times and each time Hawthorne objected. Exhibit A DePaul and
Hawthorne thereafter were in near constant arguments about actions Hawthorne knew to be
retaliatory against Hunt. Exhibit A
The above and other facts as alleged in Hunt’s Complaint as it pertains to Hawthorne
were based on Hunt’s perception, albeit mistaken perception as it turns out, that Hawthorne was
closely aligned to DePaul and Mayer. The bad acts as alleged by Hunt in his Complaint occurred,
but those bad acts were at the direction and instigation of DePaul and Mayer who held the intent
to retaliate against Hunt. Exhibit A
In early 2012, Hawthorne also began to notice other improprieties such as the fraudulent
use of grant money that was intended for Domestic Violence use, not to be used as a personal
slush fund of Mayer. Exhibit A Hawthorne told Mayer he was not going to participate in any 6
6 Hunt also suspected Mayer to be misappropriating the DV Grant monies and reported same to the Cape May County Prosecutor’s office and the Federal Justice Department. Exhibit B
14
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 15 of 25 PageID: 2479
cover ups and that he was no longer going to serve as the chauffeur to DePaul and Mayer so that
they could get intoxicated while defrauding the government. Exhibit A
Shortly after, Hawthorne got called into Mayer’s office by DePaul and in Mayer’s
presence, DePaul threatened Hawthorne’s enrollment to the FBI Leeda Training. Exhibit A
DePaul was so angry he was spitting at the mouth screaming to Hawthorne that he had no
business complaining about anything. Exhibit A DePaul advised Hawthorne that if it was a
mistake that Hawthorne had become a Lieutenant, he could fix that because he was “great at
fixing things” and said “look what I did to Hunt.” Exhibit A DePaul told Hawthorne that if
Hawthorne wanted to take him on, he’s ready because he has “enough time to retire but you
[Hawthorne] don’t.” Exhibit A DePaul ended the meeting by ripping up the FBI Training
paperwork for Hawthorne, told Hawthorne to never question the Domestic Violence Grant again
and walked out of the office. Exhibit A
It was about this time that William Blaney, attorney for Wildwood Crest for purposes of
prosecuting the disciplinary charges against Hunt, began to have meetings with Hawthorne to
review the charges in so far as Hawthorne was involved. Exhibit A The meetings to prep
Hawthorne took place in the presence of DePaul and Mayer. Exhibit A DePaul and Mayer
wanted to hear what Hawthorne had to say about the charges, not because Hawthorne was in a
“litigation control group,” but because they did not trust Hawthorne. Exhibit A Indeed,
Hawthorne was well aware that he was not a part of any decision making process as it pertained
to management let alone as it pertained to the disciplinary process against Hunt. Exhibit A
During the meetings, Hawthorne was frequently interrupted by argumentative outbursts by
DePaul who attempted to influence Hawthorne. Exhibit A
15
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 16 of 25 PageID: 2480
The disciplinary hearing for Hunt started on September 12, 2012. Mayer and Hawthorne
were not even talking at this time (unbeknownst to Hunt). Exhibit A Hawthorne had also
complained to DePaul that Mayer was rarely in the office in the summer months although he was
scheduled to work. Exhibit A Instead, Hawthorne observed Mayer working his fruit stand truck
business while on the clock for the Borough. Exhibit A
DePaul barely talked to Hawthorne except in an attempt to influence Hawthorne’s
testimony against Hunt. Exhibit A DePaul and Hawthorne were constantly fighting. Exhibit A 7
Hawthorne was on the verge of a nervous breakdown and thought his career would soon be over
because he was not going to lie. Exhibit A
Contrary to Gelfand’s unsupported supposition, Hawthorne was not “one of the three
police administrators who directed the investigation and prosecution of administrative
disciplinary charges against Plaintiff Sgt. Hunt.” (Def. Br. 34);Exhibit A It is true that “at some
point” Hawthorne began an “investigation of Defendants DePaul and Mayer” because
Hawthorne had all along suspected that DePaul and Mayer were engaging in illegal conduct and
he sought to secure proof of it. Exhibit A
Gelfand claims that the investigation by Hawthorne was “unauthorized” without
recognizing the pivotal fact that the Wildwood Crest Police Department, as small as it was, did
not have an internal affairs investigation division and that any such investigation would have to
be “authorized” by the Chief or Captainthe very men he suspected of wrongdoing. Exhibit A It
makes little sense to portray Hawthorne’s investigation as an “offthe grid” illegitimate
investigation when Hawthorne was a bona fide conscientious police officer attempting to
7 Hawthorne never testified in the disciplinary proceeding because it was terminated by the withdrawal from the Office of Administrative Law and the Civil Service Commission.
16
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 17 of 25 PageID: 2481
carefully secure proof of his suspicions in order to legitimately take his concerns to an outside
agency.
Hawthorne was so very adverse to the goal and interests of DePaul and Mayerthe sole
perpetrators of the disciplinary action against Hunt that it is disingenuous at best to characterize
Hawthorne as part of the “litigation control group.”Exhibit A
The Borough of Wildwood Crest does not nor should not have any reason to believe that
any “confidences” were shared with Hawthorne because they did not share any confidences.
Exhibit A Instead, Hawthorne made abundantly clear that he was not a part of their game plan.
He objected to their actions, eventually gathered up enough evidence and went to the Cape May
County Prosecutor’s Office to report DePaul and Mayer for criminal wrongdoing. Exhibit A
Even more insulting, bordering on purposeful misrepresentation to this Court, is the
assertion that Hawthorne in any meaningful manner participated in this civil litigation as part of
the “litigation control group.” Exhibit A Hawthorne met with Joseph Scott, the attorney retained
on behalf of the Joint Insurance Fund to represent collectively the Borough of Wildwood Crest,
Groon, DePaul, Mayer and Hawthorne in the civil litigation by Hunt initially filed in the State
Court. Exhibit A At the time, Hawthorne conveyed his thoughts to Scott that DePaul and Mayer
were wrong and many of the allegations by Hunt were accurate. Exhibit A
At that point, Scott advised Hawthorne that he needed to obtain other counsel. Exhibit A
Scott and his law firm had no business from that point forward in representing
Hawthorne. See R.P.C. 1.13 (b).
17
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 18 of 25 PageID: 2482
Hawthorne did indeed obtain other counsel but not before the State Court action was
dismissed. Exhibit A The Federal court action was filed but did not name Hawthorne nor Mayer 8
as Defendants.Exhibit A Hunt believed it sufficient to name only the policymakers on behalf of
the Borough of Wildwood Crest as Defendants, therefore Groon as the Mayor and DePaul as the
Chief of Police remained as named Defendants along with the Borough of Wildwood Crest.
Exhibit B
LEGAL STATEMENT
RPC 1.7(a) refers to “concurrent” (i.e., contemporaneous) conflicts of two sorts, derived
from former RPC 1.7(a) and (b): conflicts involving “directly adverse” client interests and
conflicts involving representation that is “materially limited” by the lawyer’s responsibilities to
others or by the lawyer’s own interests. Directly adverse situations are obvious, such as an
employer and employee.
RPC 1.7(b) allows for the curing of concurrent conflicts. The curing process involves two
elements: 1) client consent to the conflict, and 2) the lawyer’s belief that the representation will
not be impaired by the conflict.
Hanntz v. Shiley, Inc., a Div. of Pfizer, Inc.,766 F.Supp. 258, 269270 (D.N.J. 1991). In
Hanntz, the Court, adopted the ABA's Formal Opinion and held that Rule 4.2 does not prohibit
ex parte communication with former employees of a corporate adversary. Several courts
considering this precise issue have adopted the decision reached in Hanntz. See e.g., Shearson
8 Hawthorne retained attorney Alan Epstein from Philadelphia for advice after he went to the Cape May County Prosecutor with reports of criminal wrongdoing by DePaul, and Mayer. Hawthorne later retained David Meyer, Esq. to represent him with regard to the Paff v. Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office, Order to Show Cause OPRA challenge. Hawthorne terminated his relationship with attorney Meyer after Hawthorne learned that Meyer's wife was the direct secretary to Cape May County Counsel and Meyer failed to immediately disclose this to Hawthorne. Thereafter, Hawthorne contacted attorney Michelle Douglass to represent his interests in the Paff matter.
18
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 19 of 25 PageID: 2483
- Lehman Bros., Inc. v. Wasatch Bank, 139 F.R.D. 412, 418 (D.Utah 1991); DuBois v. Gradco
Systems, Inc., 136 F.R.D. 341, 345 (D.Conn. 1991); Action Air Freight, Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight
Corp., 769 F.Supp. 899 (E.D.Pa. 1991); Monsanto Co. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 593 A.2d
1013, 1016 (Del.Super.Ct. 1990). Where appropriate, courts often afford litigants latitude in
conducting discovery. Reading Rule 4.2 otherwise would needlessly hamper plaintiff's factual
discovery under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 without promoting any of the concerns Rule 4.2 seeks to
address.
"Proof of such discrimination is always difficult. Defendants of even minimal
sophistication will neither admit discriminatory animus nor leave a paper trail demonstrating
it…”. Riordan v. Kempiners, 831 F.2d 690, 699 (7th Cir. 1987). “Although not the dispositive
factor, the fact that this is a discrimination action supports flexibility in the discovery process.”
Goff v. Wheaton Industries, 45 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1992). Prior to engaging in any substantive ex
parte communications about the "subject of the representation," counsel is obligated to determine
if the witness was in the "litigation control group" within the meaning of R.P.C. 1.13(a) or
otherwise represented by counsel. See R.P.C. 4.2 . This does not imply that an attorney must
determine whether a person is in the litigation control group or otherwise represented by counsel
before initiating contact. Michaels v. Woodland, 988 F.Supp. 468 (D.N.J.1997) To the contrary,
Judge Rosen's opinion recognizes that an attorney must first determine whether a person is in the
litigation control group or otherwise represented by counsel prior to engaging in any substantive
ex parte communications not before initiating contact with an individual.
Once the approaching attorney has ascertained that a person is not in the litigation control
group or otherwise represented by counsel, the attorney's ethical obligations are not over. In
19
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 20 of 25 PageID: 2484
other words, the attorney is not free under the RPCs to then engage in a substantive conversation
with the potential witness, especially one that is employed by an organization.
The approaching attorney must consider the requirements of R.P.C. 4.3, which further
addresses an attorney's communications with an "unrepresented person" and "employees of an
organization." Thus, assuming at this point that the attorney has established to his satisfaction
that the person is neither represented by individual counsel nor in a litigation control group, the
approaching attorney must, first and foremost, not appear "disinterested." See New Jersey Rules
Of Professional Conduct Rule 4.3 (West 2000). If the attorney "knows or reasonably should
know" that the unrepresented person misunderstands their role in the case, the attorney has an
obligation pursuant to R.P.C. 4.3 to correct the misunderstanding. See Id. Furthermore, if the
person to whom the attorney is speaking is an employee of an organization (but not a member of
the litigation control group), the attorney must again exercise reasonable diligence in
determining whether the person is actually represented by the organization's attorney pursuant to
1.13(e) or has a right to such representation. See Id. If the approaching attorney ascertains that
the person is neither actually represented by the organization's attorney nor has a right to such
representation, the attorney has an obligation to "make known to the person that insofar as the
lawyer understands, the person is not being represented by the organization's attorney." Id.
"The underlying principle in considering motions to disqualify counsel is safeguarding
the integrity of the court proceedings; the purpose of granting such motions is to eliminate the
threat that the litigation will be tainted."Lamb v. Pralex Corp., 333 F. Supp. 2d 361, 363, 46 V.I.
213 (D.V.I. July 12, 2004)(citing, Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed.
158 (1932)).
20
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 21 of 25 PageID: 2485
-
- -
Motions to disqualify are viewed with disfavor as disqualification is a drastic remedy
with often farreaching, sometimes devastating implications. Alexander v. Primerica Holdings,
Inc., 822 F.Supp. 1099, 1114 (D.N.J.1993). A party seeking to disqualify counsel carries a heavy
burden and must satisfy a high standard of proof. Id.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has noted that "[a]lthough disqualification
ordinarily is the result of a finding that a disciplinary rule prohibits an attorney’s appearance in a
case, disqualification never is automatic." U.S. v. Miller, 624 F.2d 1198, 1201 (3d Cir.1980).
The question of whether disqualification is appropriate is committed to the sound discretion of
the district court, which "means that the court should disqualify an attorney only when it
determines, on the facts of the particular case, that disqualification is an appropriate means of
enforcing the applicable disciplinary rule." Id.Wyeth v. Abbott Laboratories, 692 F.Supp.2d 453
(D.N.J. 2010).
Indeed, as other courts in this district have stated, "[m]otions to disqualify are viewed
with `disfavor' and disqualification is considered a `drastic measure which courts should hesitate
to impose except when absolutely necessary.'" Carlyle Towers, 944 F.Supp. at 345 (quoting
Alexander v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 822 F.Supp. 1099 1114 (D.N.J.1993)).
"Disqualification questions are intensely factspecific, and it is essential to approach such
problems with a keen sense of practicality as well as a precise picture of the underlying facts."
Carlyle Towers, 944 F.Supp. at 345 (quoting Gould, Inc. v. Mitsui Mining & Smelting Co., 738
F.Supp. 1121, 1124 (N.D.Ohio 1990)). "Because disqualification during pending litigation is an
extreme measure, courts must closely scrutinize the facts of each case to avoid injustice." In re
Cendant Corp. Securities Litigation, 124 F. Supp 2d 235, 249 (D.N.J. 2000). In ruling on such a
21
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 22 of 25 PageID: 2486
motion, courts should "consider the ends that the disciplinary rule is designed to serve and any
countervailing policies, such as permitting a litigant to retain the counsel of his choice and
enabling attorneys to practice without excessive restrictions." Miller, supra, 624 F.2d at 1201.
Notably, "ethical rules should not be blindly applied without consideration of the relative
hardships." Carlyle Towers, 944 F.Supp. at 345 (quoting Gould, 738 F.Supp. at 1124); see also
Cendant Corp., 124 F.Supp.2d at 249 ("courts must closely scrutinize the facts . . . [and] balance
the hardships to the client whose lawyer is sought to be disqualified against potential harm to the
adversary should the attorney be permitted to proceed.").
A court must "exercise extreme caution not to act under the misguided belief that
disqualification raises the standard of legal ethics and the public's respect; the opposition effect is
just as likely—encouragement of vexatious tactics, which increase public cynicism about the
administration of justice." Id. (quoting Gould, 738 F.Supp. at 1126).
In this case, Defendants are unable to identify any confidential information accessible to
Hawthorne that could be used in the Hunt case. There simply is no violation of R.P.C.1.7.
Defendants cannot clearly and precisely identify the “significant risk that the representation of
one or more clients (Hunts) will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another
client (Hawthorne), a former client (not applicable), or a third person (Borough of Wildwood
Crest, DePaul and Mayer) or by a personal interest of the lawyer (not applicable),” because
there is none.
In this matter, there is not a significant risk that the continued representation of the Hunts
will be materially limited by the undersigned’s responsibilities to Hawthorne or to the
Defendants. Hawthorne is not and never was a member of the Defendants’ “litigation control
22
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 23 of 25 PageID: 2487
group.” The “litigation control group” is defined at R.P.C. 1.13. Hawthorne is very obviously not
a member of the “litigation control group.” He was not responsible for the discipline or
termination of Tom Hunt (the subject matter of this litigation and that of the disciplinary
administrative matter). Hawthorne was not only not significantly involved in the determination
of the organization's legal position here, he was significantly opposed to its position. There was
therefore no breach of duty under R.P.C. 4.2
Moreover, the undersigned took every precaution to ensure compliance with the RPCs.
Hawthorne contacted the undersigned. The undersigned did not contact nor reach out to
Hawthorne.
Hawthorne sought out the representation by the undersigned because he believed that she
was best suited to represent him given the fact that she understood the myriad of facts and
nuances of these interrelated matters. What’s more, after Hawthorne contacted the undersigned, a
careful and thorough vetting took place to determine whether there were any possible conflicts.
Hawthorne unmistakably confirmed that he was not in the litigation control group at any time
relevant to the Hunt matters and he further confirmed that he was not in possession of any
general or specific confidences that would compromise the position of the Defendants.
Finally, R.P.C. 8.4 is not implicated because the undersigned did no prejudice
administration of justice. There has been no misrepresentation of the status of this or any other
matter, no unreasonable delay caused by the undersigned, no dishonesty or fraud and no attempt
to conceal nor attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct or ethics.
It is disconcerting to respond to the within disqualification application in the face of the
irony that the conflict and violation of the RPCs poses for Defense counsel. Mr. Gelfand’s
23
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 24 of 25 PageID: 2488
continued representation of any of the Defendants is especially troublesome because of the
ramifications presented by the actions his clients DePaul and Mayer in falsifying evidence in this
case which is obviously and painfully a conflict to that of his legal obligations to his client, the
Borough of Wildwood Crest. The conflict presented by Mr. Gelfand’s participation in the
criminal investigation into the conduct of DePaul and Mayer making him a fact witness cannot
square with his legal obligations to all three defendants in this case.
CONCLUSION
In any event, it is respectfully requested that the Court deny Defendants’ motion to
disqualify and leave for another day the ethical considerations associated with Mr. Gelfand's
continued representation of any and/or all three defendants in this case.
Date: May 28, 2015 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michelle J. Douglass
Michelle J. Douglass, Esq.
24
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 68 Filed 05/28/15 Page 25 of 25 PageID: 2489
1
[Doc. No. 69]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE THOMAS J. HUNT and BARBARA HUNT, Plaintiffs, v. BOROUGH OF WILDWOOD CREST, et al., Defendants.
Civil No. 12-6887 (JEI/AMD)
ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION
This matter comes before the Court by way of
Defendants Borough of Wildwood Crest, Mayor Carl Groon, Chief of
Police Thomas DePaul, and Captain David Mayer’s informal letter
application for an extension of time to file a reply brief to
the pending motion to disqualify [Doc. No. 67]. (See Letter
[Doc. No. 69].) Plaintiffs Thomas J. Hunt and Barbara Hunt
(hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) object to the extension, and
Defendant Dr. Gary M. Glass takes no position on the requested
extension. The Court conducted a telephone status conference on
the record on June 8, 2015 and noted the following appearances:
Michelle Douglass, Esquire, appearing on behalf of Plaintiffs;
Todd J. Gelfand, Esquire appearing on behalf of Defendants
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 71 Filed 06/08/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2546
2
Borough of Wildwood Crest, Mayor Carl Groon, Chief of Police
Thomas DePaul, and Captain David Mayer; and Jennifer Cooley,
Esquire, appearing on behalf of Dr. Gary M. Glass. For the
reasons set forth on the record, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 8th day of June 2015:
ORDERED that Defendants Borough of Wildwood Crest,
Mayor Carl Groon, Chief of Police Thomas DePaul, and Captain
David Mayer’s informal letter application for an extension of
time to file a reply brief [Doc. No. 69] shall be, and is
hereby, GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants Borough of Wildwood Crest,
Mayor Carl Groon, Chief of Police Thomas DePaul, and Captain
David Mayer shall file by no later than June 15, 2015 any reply
brief to the pending motion to disqualify [Doc. No. 67]; and it
is further
ORDERED that any sur-reply brief to the pending motion
to disqualify [Doc. No. 67] shall be filed by no later than June
22, 2015.
s/ Ann Marie Donio ANN MARIE DONIO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: Hon. Joseph E. Irenas
Case 1:12-cv-06887-JEI-AMD Document 71 Filed 06/08/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2547