## Facts

- Elizabeth Holtzman, then the elected District Attorney of Kings County and a lawyer, wrote a letter accusing a sitting judge, Irving Levine, of humiliating a sex-offense complainant by requiring her to reenact an assault position in the judge’s robing room during a misdemeanor sexual misconduct trial.
- The letter described the alleged incident as a factual account and asserted that the judge “degraded, humiliated and demeaned” the complainant.
- The letter was addressed to a judicial committee chair and was publicly disseminated after Holtzman’s office issued a media “news alert.”
- Holtzman relied primarily on a memorandum from a newly hired assistant district attorney and did not personally interview all key participants before publicizing the accusations.
- An administrative investigation concluded that Holtzman’s accusations were not supported by the evidence.
- The matter was referred to the Grievance Committee, which initially issued a private admonition; after Holtzman requested a hearing, formal charges were served and the Committee imposed a public Letter of Reprimand.
- The Appellate Division confirmed the Committee’s determination, and Holtzman appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the record supported findings that Holtzman violated disciplinary rules by publicly making factual accusations impugning a judge’s integrity without an adequate factual basis, including making false statements about a judge and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
2. Whether disciplining Holtzman for her public criticism of a judge violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether a Letter of Reprimand was an appropriate sanction under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order confirming the Grievance Committee’s determination and upheld the Letter of Reprimand.
- The court held that the record adequately supported the Committee’s conclusion that Holtzman disseminated serious factual accusations about a judge either knowing they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
- The court concluded that applying the disciplinary rules to Holtzman’s conduct, and imposing a reprimand, was constitutionally permissible given the nature of the statements and the evidentiary support for reckless disregard.
- The court left undisturbed the Committee’s choice of sanction as within the permissible range for the misconduct found.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may be disciplined for making factual statements about a judge’s integrity or qualifications that are false and made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity (DR 8-102(B)).
- Attorney criticism of judges is protected in general, but protection does not extend to knowingly false or recklessly made factual accusations that impugn judicial integrity.
- Conduct by a lawyer—particularly a prosecutor in a public leadership role—that predictably harms public confidence in the judiciary or the orderly administration of justice can constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and can reflect adversely on fitness to practice (DR 1-102(A)(5), (6)).
- Public dissemination of allegations framed as factual accounts heightens the need for a reasonable factual basis and careful verification before publication.
- Attorney discipline for such conduct is treated as regulation of professional conduct and may be consistent with the First Amendment when grounded in findings of knowing falsity or reckless disregard.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a public reprimand of an elected district attorney who publicly circulated detailed factual allegations accusing a judge of serious misconduct without sufficient verification, finding the statements were made knowingly false or with reckless disregard and that disciplining the conduct did not violate free speech protections.


Matter of Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184 (N.Y. 1991)