Judge chides lawyers for 'tit-for-tat squabbles' and 'shenanigans,' sanctions one for shut-up command
Image from Shutterstock.
A federal magistrate judge in Florida has criticized two lawyers for “needless and inappropriate bickering” during depositions and sanctioned one of them partly for telling the opposing counsel to “shut the f- - - up.”
In a June 11 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss of the Southern District of Florida ordered lawyer Adi Amit to write off all time in connection with the dispute as a sanction for his profane language and other deposition conduct, Law360 reports.
But Strauss said the opposing counsel, Elliot Kozolchyk, was not blameless because he escalated the bickering. As a result, Strauss said he expects Kozolchyk to write off his time spent on the dispute, even though there is no motion for sanctions against him.
Amit and Kozolchyk are frequent opponents in wage-and-hour cases, Strauss said in his order. As far as Strauss could tell, the lawyers largely appeared professional and respectful toward each other.
“Yet, any such professionalism recently came to a screeching halt—on both sides,” Strauss wrote in the order. The lawyers “have started to engage in tit-for-tat squabbles and accusations that have done nothing but waste the court’s time, their own time and their clients’ money—shenanigans that reasonable and professional attorneys do not engage in.”
The dispute stems from three remote depositions and Kozolchyk’s conflict with a court reporter that began in a separate case between Kozolchyk and an associate at Amit’s firm.
According to Kozolchyk, the court reporter in the different case said she couldn’t hear Kozolchyk and asked him to remove his face mask. He refused. Later in the same deposition, Kozolchyk asked the court reporter whether she had transcribed an objection that he made.
The court reporter said she had not transcribed any of Kozolchyk’s objections because she could not hear him.
At the three depositions in the case before Strauss:
• On April 22, the same court reporter appeared for the deposition. Kozolchyk objected because he thought the court reporter had not accurately transcribed the prior deposition, and he apparently thought it was intentional.
Kozolchyk “probably said more than what was necessary, but that did not excuse what came next,” Strauss wrote. “Specifically, Mr. Amit yelled at Mr. Kozolchyk twice to ‘Shut the f- - - up.’” The deposition later continued after Kozolchyk sought Strauss’ intervention, and Strauss said the lawyers should be able to resolve their differences.
• On April 27, the same court reporter appeared. Kozolchyk again objected and “said far more than what was necessary,” Strauss said. The court reporter’s responses “made things worse rather than better,” Strauss said. “Mr. Amit then felt the need to chime in. A back-and-forth squabble between Mr. Kozolchyk and Mr. Amit then ensued, including silly arguments over who had argued with whom.”
• On April 28, the same court reporter appeared. Kozolchyk began by asking the court reporter whether she could hear him and whether she was transcribing everything that he was saying. Kozolchyk once again said “far more than what was necessary,” Strauss said. Both lawyers then engaged in an “extended, improper dialogue.”
Amit said that, if he was the court reporter, he would sue Kozolchyk for defamation and file a bar complaint against him. The court reporter later said she may do so.
At some point, Amit cursed at Kozolchyk, saying either “f- - - you” or “f- - - off.”
Strauss said both lawyers impeded and delayed the depositions, and their behavior “displayed more interest in getting the last word and baiting each other than in actually resolving their dispute.”
Strauss also said Amit’s profane language “was clearly unprofessional and is unacceptable. Indeed, continuation of such conduct could be grounds for a referral to the Florida Bar or for further professionalism training.”
Amit wasn’t wrong to use the court reporter for the April 22 deposition, but he should have retained a different reporter for the depositions that followed, Strauss said.
“This problem had an easy fix,” Strauss said.
Law360 spoke with Amit and Kozolchyk.
In an email, Amit told Law360, “I regret that this out-of-character incident—indeed, the first and only one in more than 14 years of practice—occasioned by opposing counsel’s provocation of a court reporter over consecutive depositions, took place and had to be addressed by the court.”
Kozolchyk expressed frustration with the ruling.
“We sought the court’s intervention and sanctions against Mr. Amit because his behavior was egregious,” Kozolchyk told Law360. “We are disappointed that the court’s decision paints both sides with the same broad brush.”
