## Facts

- Jordan Evan Schiff was admitted to practice law in New York in 1988 and practiced in the First Department.
- While representing a plaintiff at a deposition in a personal-injury action, Schiff engaged in aggressive conduct toward opposing counsel, a female attorney.
- Schiff directed vulgar, obscene, and sexist epithets at opposing counsel, including gender-based insults made during the deposition.
- A judge in the underlying civil matter imposed monetary sanctions arising from the deposition conduct.
- Soon after the incident, Schiff was terminated by his law firm.
- The Departmental Disciplinary Committee brought disciplinary charges; a Hearing Panel found misconduct and unanimously recommended public censure.
- Schiff apologized by letter and in person at the disciplinary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether Schiff’s deposition conduct—abusive, vulgar, and sexist verbal attacks on opposing counsel—constituted professional misconduct under DR 1-102(A)(7) as conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law.
2. If misconduct was established, what sanction was appropriate in light of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

## Decision

- The court granted the disciplinary committee’s motion to confirm the Hearing Panel’s report and recommendation.
- The court held Schiff’s conduct was “inexcusable and intolerable” and violated DR 1-102(A)(7) because it adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
- The court imposed the recommended sanction of public censure.
- The court warned that repetition of similar conduct would almost certainly warrant suspension from practice.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer commits misconduct under DR 1-102(A)(7) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law, including severe harassment or abuse in the course of legal practice.
- Zealous representation does not excuse degrading, intimidating, or sexist attacks on opposing counsel during litigation proceedings such as depositions.
- In setting discipline, the court may consider mitigating factors such as sincere apology, relative youth and inexperience, prior judicial sanctions, and employment consequences, while still treating the misconduct as serious and warranting public discipline.
- Public censure may be imposed for extreme incivility and sexist abuse, with escalation to suspension likely for повтор conduct.

## Conclusion

The court publicly censured an attorney for sexist and abusive deposition behavior, finding it reflected adversely on his fitness to practice under DR 1-102(A)(7), and issued an explicit warning that any similar future misconduct would likely result in suspension.


In re Schiff, 190 A.D.2d 293 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1993)