IN RE: Joshua A. DOUGLASS (2026)

OPINION & ORDER

The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District commenced a formal disciplinary proceeding against the respondent by serving and filing a notice of petition and a verified petition, both dated August 5, 2024.  The respondent served and filed a verified answer dated September 9, 2024, admitting most of the factual allegations but denying any violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  By decision and order on application dated November 19, 2024, this Court referred the matter to the Honorable Arthur J. Cooperman, as Special Referee, to hear and report.  A prehearing conference was conducted on February 11, 2025, and a hearing was conducted on April 14, 2025.  In a report dated July 7, 2025, the Special Referee sustained all eight charges in the petition.  The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as this Court deems just and proper.

The Petition

Charges one and two are based on the below factual allegations.  In early 2022, the respondent represented Kristy Kiely, the plaintiff in a matrimonial matter pending in Queens County Family Court.  Kiely's husband, Robert Weisenburger, was represented by Gayle Rosenblum.  At some point, the respondent was introduced to Marcie Salmon, a friend of Kiely, who began assisting the respondent with Kiely's matter.  Salmon reviewed documentation related to Kiely's matter and was included on conference calls with the parties.  On April 18, 2022, Salmon sent text messages to Weisenburger, accusing him of violating court orders related to contact with the daughter of Kiely and Weisenburger.  In her text messages, Salmon indicated her association with the respondent's law firm, identifying herself as the respondent's “paralegal” and “case manager,” and making references to “our office” and “our firm.”  On April 20, 2022, Rosenblum sent the respondent an email with Salmon's text messages attached, and requested that Salmon cease communications with Weisenburger.

On April 21, 2022, Salmon sent an email to Rosenblum and the respondent, accusing Weisenburger of harassing Kiely, and identifying herself as the respondent's “legal assistant.”  On April 22, 2022, Rosenblum sent the respondent and Salmon an email, again requesting that Salmon cease further communications with Weisenburger.  On May 3, 2022, Salmon sent an email to Weisenburger and the respondent, accusing Weisenburger's relatives of child abuse and citing to various sections of the Penal Law. On May 4, 2022, Rosenblum sent the respondent another email, again requesting that Salmon cease communicating with Weisenburger.  While acknowledging that he had received both Rosenblum's and Salmon's emails, the respondent failed to respond to Rosenblum's emails or otherwise contact her, and did not make any effort to ensure that Salmon ceased communicating with Weisenburger.

In June 2022, Rosenblum filed an order to show cause to disqualify the respondent from further representing Kiely by reason of Salmon's communications with Weisenburger.  In a decision and order dated October 5, 2022, Support Magistrate Rosa Astuto disqualified the respondent from further representation of Kiely, in reliance upon rule 4.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0).  With respect to the respondent's failure to respond to Rosenblum's emails of April 20, 2022, April 22, 2022, and May 4, 2022, and Salmon's email of April 21, 2022, Support Magistrate Astuto noted:  “It shows a callous indifference to the rules of professional responsibility that bind him.  He has allowed his agent either through failure to supervise or plain indifference to engage in an abusive and harassing course of conduct that is unacceptable and calls into question the ethics of the profession.”

Based on the above, charge one alleges that the respondent violated rule 4.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits a lawyer from communicating or causing another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, and charge two alleges that the respondent failed to supervise a nonlawyer associated with his law office, in violation of rule 5.3(b)(1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Charge three alleges that the respondent engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct before a tribunal, in violation of rule 3.3(f)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Support Magistrate Astuto directed the parties to appear for a hearing on the order to show cause on July 8, 2022.  Just prior to the start of the hearing, Salmon, identifying herself as the respondent's paralegal, attempted to phone into the hearing but was excluded because she had not obtained prior permission from the court.  In a discussion prior to the hearing, the respondent advised Support Magistrate Astuto that Salmon was not his paralegal.  When asked by Support Magistrate Astuto to explain why Salmon had asserted that she was the respondent's paralegal, the respondent stated:  “Your honor, Your honor, I can't control.  We have freedom of speech in this country.  People can say whatever they want to say.  It doesn't make it so.”

On three occasions, Support Magistrate Astuto asked the respondent to explain what steps he had taken, if any, to ensure that Salmon ceased communicating with Weisenburger, in view of Salmon's text messages and emails indicating that she was associated with the respondent's law firm.  The respondent gave nonresponsive answers, instead attacking Rosenblum and Weisenburger, and citing Weisenburger's alleged failure to pay child support.  When asked a fourth time what steps he had taken to ensure that Salmon ceased communicating with Weisenburger, the respondent stated:

“I haven't done anything.  I never hired her in the first place.  She does not work for me, and she can do whatever she wants.  I can't control a person who's got freedom to do whatever the heck they want.  I am not in a position to control that.  I can tell her not to, you know, to, to get away from the case and to stand down and to leave the case alone if that's something you would like me to do.  I will free [sic] to do that so that we can get on to actually what you have said more than once is actually what the court needs to be focusing on, and I will be more than happy to tell [Salmon] to stop getting involved in this case if that would make your Honor happy.  I will be more than happy to do that if you think that that's a step that I should take.  It sounds like you do, and I will do that.  She will never have anything to do with this case whatsoever going forward.  I can promise you that.”

Making reference to this answer in the decision and order disqualifying the respondent as counsel, Support Magistrate Astuto noted:  “This was delivered in a decibel that the transcript alone simply cannot convey and in this court's view was contemptuous.”

Charge four alleges that the respondent engaged in undignified and discourteous conduct before a tribunal, in violation of rule 3.3(f)(2) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, based on the following factual allegations.  During a hearing on August 9, 2022, before Support Magistrate Astuto, while Rosenblum was making her final arguments for the respondent's disqualification, the respondent raised his voice on several occasions and was advised by a court officer to refrain from speaking over the court.  The respondent also placed his hands in front of Rosenblum's face and stated, in reference to Rosenblum and Weisenburger, “you guys need to get your shit together.”  Shortly thereafter, the respondent stated to Rosenblum, in a sarcastic manner, that she was “such a great person.”  The respondent was then reprimanded for his conduct by Support Magistrate Astuto, and engaged in the following exchange with her at the conclusion of the hearing:

“Court:  Counsel!  Counsel are you serious?  She's here saying you violated the rules of professional conduct and you're conducting yourself like someone who has never been in a courtroom before.

[The] Respondent:  I'm in a courtroom all the time doing very.

Court:  Well, it doesn't seem that way to me.

[The] Respondent:  doing very important things and to get.

Court:  Counsel, please.

[The] Respondent:  I've never had this kind of.

Court:  Counsel!”

Referring to this exchange in the decision and order disqualifying the respondent as counsel, Support Magistrate Astuto noted:  “The transcript of the proceedings does no justice to what actually occurred this day.  [The respondent] acted in an egregious manner not befitting an officer of the court.”

Charge five alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, on the basis of the factual specifications alleged in charges three and four.

Charge six alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct based on the following factual allegations.  In November 2017, Alana Orr and other plaintiffs filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (hereinafter NDNY) against the Honorable Anthony McGinty, a Family Court judge in Ulster County, alleging that they had been deprived of their civil rights as a result of Judge McGinty's decisions in their custody matters.  The respondent represented Orr in both the Family Court and NDNY matters.  On August 18, 2021, NDNY Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks issued the following protective order with respect to the scheduled deposition of Judge McGinty:

“It is ORDERED that there shall be no discussion of any testimony or dissemination of the videotape or written transcript of the deposition of defendant Anthony McGinty beyond the existing parties to this action at this time until further order of this Court.  Any person found to be in violation of this temporary protective order shall be subject to sanctions, including, but not limited to, contempt sanctions, monetary sanctions, and/or any other sanctions deemed appropriate by the Court.”

On or about August 20, 2021, the respondent conducted the deposition of Judge McGinty.  Thereafter, the respondent appeared at a social event where he was recorded on video discussing the details of Judge McGinty's deposition, including questions asked of and answered by Judge McGinty, in violation of the protective order.  In January 2022, the New York State Attorney General's Office, counsel for Judge McGinty, advised the court of the respondent's appearance at the event and provided Magistrate Judge Dancks with a video recording of the event.

On January 13, 2022, Magistrate Judge Dancks ordered the respondent to show cause by January 27, 2022, as to why sanctions should not be imposed for violating the protective order.  On January 27, 2022, the respondent filed a response with the court, in which he admitted that he violated the protective order.  By decision and order dated July 5, 2022, Magistrate Judge Dancks sanctioned the respondent for violating the protective order and ordered him to pay a $500 fine.

Charge seven alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, based on the factual allegation that at the same social event alleged in charge six, the respondent referred to Judge McGinty as “one of the worst judges in Ulster County” and stated that he gave Orr an unfavorable decision in her custody matter as a result of his “fucking ego.”

Charge eight alleges that the respondent engaged in conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, in violation of rule 8.4(h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, on the basis of the factual specifications alleged in charges one, two, three, four, and six.

In his answer, the respondent admitted most of the factual allegations but denied any violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Hearing and Hearing Record

The Grievance Committee entered 15 exhibits into evidence to prove its case-in-chief and called no witnesses.  The respondent testified on his own behalf and confirmed the salient facts.  The respondent acknowledged knowing of Salmon's inappropriate communications with Weisenburger, and apologized for not having quickly intervened, and having failed to respond to Rosenblum.  With respect to his comments to Support Magistrate Astuto, the respondent acknowledged that he “shouldn't have spoken that way in court,” and expressed regret that his conduct and his consequent disqualification had resulted in Kiely being denied his representation.  Addressing his public comments about deposing Judge McGinty, the respondent acknowledged and apologized for his violation of the protective order.  At the same time, the respondent sought to characterize his misconduct as an isolated event that had occurred after he had consumed alcohol, and explained that he had made his comments in response to people “pushing [him] to speak about what happened.”

The Special Referee's Report

In a report dated July 7, 2025, the Special Referee sustained all eight charges in the petition and noted that while the respondent expressed remorse for his misconduct, he attempted to justify it by stating that it was due to his concern about injustice in the family court system.

The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as this Court deems just and proper.  The Grievance Committee reports that the respondent's disciplinary history consists of one admonition issued in 2021 for misconduct similar to that addressed herein and one admonition issued in 2025.  The respondent did not submit a response.

Findings and Conclusion

In view of the evidence adduced at the hearing, we find that the Special Referee properly sustained all eight charges in the petition.  Accordingly, the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted.

In determining an appropriate measure of discipline, we consider that the Special Referee found that the respondent, while purporting to express remorse, attempted to justify his misconduct.  In addition, we consider the respondent's failure to take meaningful responsibility for his misconduct to be an aggravating factor.  Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that a one-year suspension from the practice of law is warranted.

ORDERED that the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Joshua A. Douglass, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing October 2, 2026, and continuing until further order of this Court.  The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than July 2, 2027.  In such application (see 22 NYCRR 1240.16), the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof that during the period of suspension, he (1) refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) fully complied with this opinion and order and with the terms and provisions of the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15), (3) complied with the applicable continuing legal education requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.11(a), and (4) otherwise properly conducted himself;  and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent, Joshua A. Douglass, shall comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15);  and it is further,

ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the respondent, Joshua A. Douglass, shall desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law;  and it is further,

ORDERED that if the respondent, Joshua A. Douglass, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).

PER CURIAM.