Criticism of a judge as a disciplinary risk for an advocate

Where is the line between a tough procedural stance and behavior that undermines the authority of justice? In Florida (USA), disciplinary offenses included statements by an advocate about the judge's bias, disregard for the content of the ruling, and contradictory motions.

Advocate Noam J. Cohen represented the interests of a creditor in the Florida 10th Judicial Circuit Court in a case involving the collection of funds from a debtor. The latter filed an objection with the court against the seizure of his bank account. However, the advocate also initiated the seizure of wages.

During the hearing, the defendant, who represented himself, was unfamiliar with the legal procedure and did not understand what circumstances he needed to prove. When the advocate began asking questions, he quickly became irritated with the answers and insisted that the debtor was lying, referring to their previous conversation. However, Judge Mary Green noted that the plaintiff's representative had not provided adequate evidence to support his claims and ruled in favor of the debtor. The advocate then accused the judge of bias during the hearing, which was being recorded. The judge adjourned the hearing and referred the advocate's conduct to the professional ethics body on the same day.

The next day, the judge issued a ruling exempting not only the funds in the bank account but also the debtor's salary from enforcement, mistakenly stating that this decision had been agreed upon by the parties during the hearing.

N. Cohen requested a review of this decision and filed a motion to recuse the judge, in which, in addition to bias, he also accused the judge of ignorance of legal standards and case law. After that, M. Green recused herself.

The advocate then filed a motion with the new judge, Ann Gibson, to make a final decision on the garnishment of the debtor's wages, which directly contradicted the previous ruling (which was later classified as a separate violation).

The Florida Bar's Grievance Committee found grounds for disciplinary action against the advocate. The advocate violated the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 4-1.3 (Integrity), Rule 4-8.2 (a) (Undermining the Qualifications and Integrity of Judges or Other Officials) and Rule 4-8.4(d) (A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that prejudices the administration of justice).

N. Cohen chose the agreed procedure for concluding the disciplinary case. He admitted that he had not read the ruling in full, had not noticed the erroneous paragraph about the parties' agreement, had not brought it to the court's attention, and had not initiated its correction.

Other circumstances were taken into account during the proceedings. The advocate's positive reputation in his religious community was considered a mitigating factor. Aggravating circumstances included the fact that during the proceedings, the advocate did not acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct, but instead insisted on the judge's bias and her incorrect application of the law. The court separately emphasized the vulnerability of the person who acted without an advocate and actually became the injured party in the situation, as well as the fact that the advocate had 25 years of experience and considerable expertise in this category of cases, and therefore realized that he could achieve his client's goals by ethical means without resorting to pressure. The judge also described his style of work as harsh and aggressive towards debtors and expressed concern that such behavior discourages people from participating in court hearings.

The advocate's admission of guilt provided grounds for a pre-agreed penalty of a 90-day suspension of his right to practice law, which was approved by the Florida Supreme Court. The agreed decision also provided for N. Cohen to voluntarily pay the costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings, which amounted to $1,250. The advocate began serving his penalty on January 22, 2026.

Interestingly, in the civil case, Judge Gibson ultimately ruled that Cohen's client could indeed garnish the debtor's wages, but this had no effect on the disciplinary penalty, according to the official website of the HQDCB.