Misheard, too sensitive, or just wrong? We think it’s a combination of all of those.
Eliot Bloom, a Long Island Attorney, was suspended for three years by New York’s Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, for calling two Nassau County prosecutor “sluts” and for harassing an elderly client. Bloom was suspended by the Second Department because they found that he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him by a client, who died in 2016 at 93 years old.
In response, Bloom filed a federal civil rights complaint against the New York state court system and several of its top officials. He claims that he was misheard and never used the slur and really said “slugs”. (Yes, this is a true story with adults and not kids in the first grade!) Bloom is demanding $6 million in damages.
In the complaint, which was preceded by a required notice of claim filed in March, Bloom described the state’s attorney grievance process as secretive and lacking due process. He also is unhappy about the three-year state grievance process, saying that it was prolonged deliberately after he filed a 2016 complaint against a grievance committee lawyer.
Representing Bloom is attorney Raymond Negron who says that his client is sad to have to take the case to federal court, but that they see no other options with the state. A state court spokesperson would not comment because of the policy against commenting on pending litigation.
The case also points out conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness as a lawyer by calling the female prosecutors “sluts.”
According to the Second Department opinion two prosecutors were standing outside a courtroom talking with a third lawyer. Bloom walked up to them and started talking to the third lawyer, who asked what he was doing at court. This was in 2016. Bloom said he was “just doing a trial with these two sluts,” and when one prosecutor objected, he told her to “stop being so sensitive, this is how I speak to ADAs,” according to the opinion.
Bloom later testified that he had said “slugs,” not “sluts,” but the appellate judges found that explanation “patently incredible.” “The respondent’s present misconduct, alongside his prior disciplinary history, reveals a recurring thread of deceit … His testimony lacked candor and showed no remorse,” the judges wrote.
We think that this blog post is a good place to start our New Year’s Resolution to be respectful to each other. No need to put others down or be rude. Let’s just go back to the basics that we learned as kids.