A panel of five justices on the New York Second Appellate Court has suspended Ossining lawyer Michael A. Deem from the practice of law for six months for not reporting a 2016 federal court suspension.
“Rather than address the merits of his underlying misconduct or the appropriate measure of discipline to impose on him,” the justices wrote, Deem “makes meritless arguments, and in essence, accuses this court of retaliating against him for pursuing his now-dismissed federal court actions arising from his New York State matrimonial and child custody matters.”
In response to a request for comment from the Westchester County Business Journal, Deem issued a cease and desist notice and threatened to sue the publication for violating a trademark on his name. He contended that even the email request, by attaching a copy of the appellate court’s decision, violated his trademark.
“I have the right,” he stated, “to restrict, prevent or limit the use of my trademark in order to protect it against any misrepresentation.”
The trademark classification is for clothing.
Deem specializes in civil rights, particularly gun rights, according to his website, which also includes a section on “judicial corruption in New York State.”
The underlying federal sanction concerns an incident in 2014 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in White Plains. Before the proceedings began, Deem used his cell phone to photograph an individual in the courtroom who he believed was conspiring with the defendant to hide bankruptcy assets from creditors, according to the appellate court decision.
In 2015, a judge on the district courts security committee revoked Deem’s court pass for violating a standing order that prohibits the use of cell phones to record events in the courthouse.
Then a court disciplinary committee charged Deem with violating a standing rule and engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Deem did not dispute the facts, according to the appellate court’s account of the disciplinary proceeding, and in 2016 the committee ruled that he had blatantly violated the standing order and clearly violated rules of professional conduct.
The committee cited the “absence of a dishonest or selfish motive” and a cooperative attitude as mitigating factors.
But his failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct and two previous federal court sanctions were noted as aggravating factors.
The committee also found Deem more dismissive than apologetic about the potential adverse impact of photographs and videos on witnesses, litigants and jurors.
In 2017, the federal disciplinary committee suspended Deem from the practice of law for six months.
After he was suspended, Deem commenced three federal court cases against his wife and state court judges pertaining to matrimonial and Family Court matters. All three actions were dismissed.
Deem did not report his suspension to the state courts, and last year the appellate court directed him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed on him.
In his response, Deem did not address the misconduct that led to the federal courts suspension, according to the appellate court, or raise any defenses to a reciprocal suspension.
Instead, he contended that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and that New York’s attorney licensing scheme is unconstitutional.
He also made accusations of misconduct against judges and others connected to Family Court matters involving his wife and custody of his children.
Deem contended that that the new disciplinary proceeding is retaliation against him for disclosing corrupt practices in the state courts.
In determining the appropriate discipline, the appellate court stated, it considered Deem’s disciplinary history, including a 2015 admonition “arising from his frivolous and vexatious conduct” in a federal case where the judge sanctioned him for “baseless personal attacks on his adversary … despite a prior warning that he desist from that conduct.”
The appellate court ruled that a six month suspension was warranted.
