Is it Worse to Call Opposing Counsel a “Slut” or a “Slug”?

An odd question, but one that a New York court recently considered in a lawyer disciplinary proceeding. See In re Eliot Bloom, No. 2017-11411 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 18 2019).¹

The respondent was representing a criminal defendant in a matter prosecuted by two female prosecutors. When a friend asked the respondent why he was in court that day, he responded, “nothing, just doing a trial with these two slu_s.”

As to the word the respondent used, there was conflicting testimony. On the one hand, the prosecutors and other courtroom witnesses testified that the respondent called the two prosecutors “sluts.” On the other hand, the respondent contended that he called them “slugs.”

The hearing officer rejected the testimony of the respondent and found that respondent used a “flagrant misogynous term directed at two female attorneys.” The reviewing court found no reason to overturn the hearing officer’s finding, ruling that the respondent’s claim of using the word “slugs” was “patently incredible.”

The reviewing court acknowledged the existence of mitigating evidence, including the prosecutors’ testimony that “their previous relationship with the respondent was one of ‘mutual respect and professionalism’ and character letters submitted by the respondent all attested to his professionalism, respectful behavior, zealous advocacy, and compassion for his clients.” Id. However, these mitigating factors were “overshadowed by the aggravating factors of this case,” including the respondent’s refusal to take admit to his actions, lack of remorse, and extensive disciplinary history. Said the court: “The respondent’s present misconduct, alongside his prior disciplinary history, reveals a recurring thread of deceit.” Id. at 9.

The court suspended the respondent from the practice of law for three years. Id.