Family Court Judge says: "Don't be a Sailor in my Courtroom"!

Here’s another sordid tale from Las Vegas family court—which always proves to be a three-ring circus. This story features the antics of Judge Sandra Pomrenze and local attorney Michancy Cramer. The other attorney is Donn Prokopius.

It started off as a typical family court hearing. Who was late to pick up the kid? Why does one party feel like an unpaid babysitter waiting for the pickup? Why is one parent subject to the whims of the other parent’s employer?

Luckily for the minor child, Pomrenze does not think inside boxes; Her Honor wants the parties to be creative. But will the parties be creative enough to ensure the minor child gets picked up on time, if at all? One thing’s for sure; family court hearings are the most degrading and tawdry legal proceedings known to humanity. And then Mr. Prokopius pipes-up, breaking the calm of that still, February morning—with pointed allegations against Ms. Michancy. “She called my client a fucking bitch!” claimed Prokopius. Michancy vehemently denied the allegations—as the virus surged ever onwards round the globe.

During these troubled times, the child’s best interests take a back seat, as they too often do, to the vainglorious misadventures of Las Vegas lawyers. And then came the diatribes—should lawyers be cursing on the job! Is an attorney’s epithet-cursing, (e.g., “You fuckin’ dickhead!”), a First Amendment right?—or an ethical violation?

Note also, the clients are the ones who must finance these lively free speech diatribes. But this is unfair to the parents who must pay out-of-pocket to endure the clever legal acumen.

Generally speaking, the rules of court require civility between counsels. Why?—to deescalate proceedings that are already adversarial in the first place. And while lawyers, like everybody else, have First Amendment free speech rights, the rules of court require civility between lawyers; therefore, epithet-cursing at opposing counsel, or opposing party, is sanctionable conduct that state bars proscribe.

Note also, where lawyers engage in cursing epithets—it’s deemed to be “conduct,” not “speech.” The First Amendment, majestic though it may be, provides no defense. And then Pomrenze addressed Ms. Michancy, “I have experience with you using inappropriate language.” Apparently, Pomrenze has actual knowledge of Michancy’s proclivities for cursing.

Quick timeout: readers may know that Ms. Michancy is the lawyer who was placed in handcuffs by Judge Potter. Notably, Judge Potter was later sanctioned for this misconduct; (and not to go too far afield, but Judge Potter now stands formally charged of passing out ball-gag patches at the courthouse…never a dull moment…). Readers will note: neither Potter nor Pomrenze will be returning to the bench in Jan. 2021. Now, back to our story…

“I cuss all the time!” exclaimed Michancy in a most excited fashion. In response, Judge Pomrenze, in most contemplative tones, carefully explained, “If you wanna be a sailor fine, go be a sailor in your private life—but don’t be a sailor in my court.”

But wait just a sec! Did Pomrenze just disrespect a couple hundred thousand American sailors? And where did that saying even originate?—curse like a sailor? Apparently, the old saying originates from Britain. As it turns out, the propensity to curse is a trait of British sailors, not American sailors. (Who knew?)

Truth be told, Pomrenze very aptly handled the matter. Her Honor correctly explained that if Michancy, in speaking with Prokopius, were to call the opposing party a curse word or epithet, then that would be absolutely inappropriate. We applaud Pomrenze. Her Honor understands the mechanics of free speech!

On a gentle, but firm gradient, Pomrenze issued a stern warning: “Ma’am, I warn you—one of these days the State Bar is going to catch up to that.”

Pomrenze explained that such behavior also breaches the “duty of fairness” to opposing counsel. By using the word “behavior,” Pomrenze demonstrates a keen understanding of the First Amendment, i.e. that epithet-cursing at opposing counsel, or opposing party, is NOT protected speech, but rather, “behavior”—which lawmakers may proscribe—and for which sanctions may be imposed.

Yes, cursing epithets are unfair to opposing counsel (who desperately wants to fire-off his or her own salvo!—right?!) But most of all, it’s unfair to opposing counsel who, witnessing the cursing epithet, and recognizing it as an ethical violation, now has a duty to report it. And this takes time. And it’s a headache. And it never comes a-well (as this hearing demonstrates). And then, in the thick of the fray, one is suddenly reminded that the interests of the minor child are long forgotten…

But Michancy was not done!

More information:
“Hey, Sailor!—Don’t Be a Sailor in My Courtroom!”
A First Amendment right?—or an ethical violation?
https://veteransinpolitics.org/2020/09/hey-sailor-dont-be-a-sailor-in-my-courtroom/