The Unethical Ethics Committee: The "Sealed Envelope Defense" (CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY)

The “Sealed Envelope Defense” - According to now-former Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill and his deputy Sherry Cohen, Esq. documents that are “under seal” - even from their view and that of DDC investigators- are considered a legitimate defense against meticulously documented complaints..... MORE .....

by William Galison

The cases of corrupt “whitewashing” alleged in Christine Anderson’s lawsuit are by no means isolated. Consider these new revelations, bordering on the bizarre, regarding the DDC’s treatment of a complaint against an attorney at the law firm Beldock, Hoffman and Levine.



In February 2004, a complaint was filed by musician William Galison against attorney Jeffrey A. Greenberg, of the law firm Beldock, Levine and Hoffman. DDC procedure requires a complaint to be vetted by an investigator, then sent to the lawyer who has been complained about (“respondent”) who has twenty days to respond to the allegations. The complainant then replies to the respondent’s response and the case is decided by the DDC. In this case, Galison’s complaint was vetted by investigator Kevin O’sullivan and sent on to Greenberg for a response. Greenberg ignored the twenty-day deadline, and sent his response after forty days.

Greenberg’s response was in the form of a cover letter, stating that the arguments and documents that vindicating Greenberg were contained in a SEALED ENVELOPE that neither NEITHER GALISON OR THE DDC WERE ALLOWED TO VIEW.

Trust Me….

In an April 19, 2004, letter to DDC Chief Counsel Cahill, Greenberg’s attorney and employer, Myron Beldock, advised the DDC that he was enclosing an “answer” to the complaint, “which is 22 pages in length and attaches 27 exhibits, is provided in two forms: the first redacts all content after pg. 3; the second is a full text, with all exhibits, contained in a sealed envelope.

In an accompanying letter, the respondent, Jeffrey Greenberg, writes to the DDC investigator Joel Peterson, “I will respond in detail to each and every allegation of misconduct set forth in Mr. Galison’s complaint, and furnish backup documentation to evidence their lack of merit.”

Of course, neither Mr. Peterson, Galison or anyone else, could never read Mr. Greenberg’s detailed response (with “backup documentation”) because the material was either redacted or “sealed”.



Under DDC rules, after the respondent answers the complaint, the next step in the process is for the complainant to reply to that response, but since the response was sealed from all eyes but those of God, complainant Galison was left with nothing to reply to. When he complained to the committee he was told to “do the best you can”.

So Galison responded by writing an exhaustive 100 page document elucidating and documenting every aspect of the complaint, in order to counter any argument that could possibly reside in the “sealed envelope”.

After waiting several months for a reply from the DDC, he received the following dismissal from Mr. Cahill:

“The Committee has determined that the dispute between you and the above referenced attorney concerns a private contractual matter which is best resolved in another forum….The committee arrived at this determination after conducting an investigation consisting of several steps. First we obtained an answer from the attorney and sent it to you for as reply…… The committee member concluded that no further investigation or action was warranted. As a result your file has been closed.”

Since his complaint did not even involve a contractual matter, and there had been no defense to his complaint submitted by Beldock (except for the sealed envelope) Galison wrote the following letter to Cahill:

Dear Mr. Cahill,

In or about February of 2004, your office received my disciplinary complaint against the attorney Jeffrey Greenberg. The original complaint is enclosed. Before filing the complaint I consulted with Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan. Mr. O’Sullivan explained to me what kinds of complaints were appropriate to make to the committee and in what form they should be presented. I drafted the complaint and brought it back to Mr. O’Sullivan for his opinion. He told me that the complaint was well written and that the claims were appropriate for the consideration of the committee.

Thereafter I received a letter signed by you and dated March 5th, 2004, which stated:
“A copy of your complaint will be sent to the above-named attorney. When we receive a written answer, it will be forwarded to you for written comments.”

In or about April of 2004, I received the enclosed response from Mr. Greenberg along with the enclosed explanatory letter from his acting attorney (and employer), Myron Beldock.

This response did not answer or even address any one of my complaints.

As you can see, this “response” comprises a list of accusations and complaints regarding my actions, motivations and character. It contains no evidence or documentation of any kind.

The accompanying letter from Mr. Beldock explains that there are an additional 22 pages and 27 exhibits in this answer but that these pages and exhibits are privileged and must remain inaccessible to either myself or the committee.
The letter I received can in no way be considered an “answer” to my complaints.

I am asking you Mr. Cahill; how could I have written a response to this “answer” when I was forbidden to view its contents? How could the committee make any informed and competent judgment about the merits of Mr. Greenberg’s answer, when they too were barred from reading it?

Finally, how can the committee dismiss or even close this case without any notion of Mr. Greenberg’s argument against a complaint the subject of which has been sanctioned by one of its own members?

As soon as I received this document from Greenberg, I called Ms. Taub to ask her what I should do? I told her that I had not received an answer from Mr. Greenberg, so I could not respond to it. Ms. Taub told me that she appreciated the problem but that I must do the best I could and that the examiner would take the circumstances into consideration.

Because I had no points to argue against, I wrote a lengthy and thoroughly documented explanation of all my complaints. I also specifically argued why several of the disciplinary complaints were entirely unrelated to any facts that could be used to my advantage in a court proceeding. I even stated that if the committee decided to postpone its consideration of some of the complaints until the court proceeding was resolved, I would consent to that.

On August 3rd I received the enclosed letter from you, which states:

“The Committee has determined that the dispute between you and the above referenced attorney concerns a private contractual matter which is best resolved in another forum.”

Precisely what contractual matter are you referring to? I can only hope that your secretary sent me the wrong form letter- otherwise, it is obvious that your examiner did not even read my complaint.

“The committee arrived at this determination after conducting an investigation consisting of several steps. First we obtained an answer from the attorney and sent it to you for as reply…… The committee member concluded that no further investigation or action was warranted. As a result your file has been closed.”

As explained above I did NOT receive an answer from the attorney and neither did you. We only received a litany of insults and accusations against me, and a refusal to address any of my complaints- along with a “sealed envelope” that may well contain used toilet paper.

The complaints against Mr. Greenberg are extremely serious and worthy, I believe, of his disbarment if found to be valid. Your committee member decided without any input of fact or documentation from Mr. Greenberg that my claims were without merit. I ask you again; how could your examiner believe the totally unsubstantiated accusations and insults by a lawyer over the carefully researched and documented complaints of a citizen?

I was astounded by your letter and called the committee to see if a clerical mistake had been made. I also sent a written request for reconsideration, which was received and acknowledged. I was told that the examiner would reexamine the case. Several weeks later, I was informed that the examiner had re-examined the case and that he had re-confirmed his decision.

Six weeks ago, I had a personal meeting with Mr. Ranieri. He assured me that a mistake must have been made and I subsequently received a notice from you that the case will be “re-examined” by another committee member.

Yesterday I went in to see Mr. Ranieri at your offices. He did not seem to recall me or my case and gave me no status report on the case. As always, I was given no paperwork to reference or document this meeting. At this point I have no confidence that this matter will be resolved though the usual beaurocratic channels.

In my opinion, there are only two explanations for this series of events.

1) Your organization is so dismissive and contemptuous of the concerns of the public that you serve merely to insulate your fellow lawyers from appropriate reprimand and punishment for violations of professional ethics.

2) The committee examiner was influenced by someone with an interest in protecting Mr. Greenberg.
If the examiner had not re-examined the case and come to the same conclusion twice, I would include the possibility of gross incompetence.

If you have an alternative explanation, I would be eager to hear it. Meanwhile, I am sending a copy of this letter and its enclosures to the appropriate authorities at the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department. I will pursue this matter wherever it leads and however long it takes until I am satisfied that the complaints against Mr. Greenberg have been considered with rigor and integrity.

In light of the seriousness of this matter and the obvious mismanagement on the part of some of your committee members, I am asking that this matter be given priority and that I be contacted as soon as possible. I would like to speak with you personally.

I look forward to hearing from you in the very near future.

William Galison

PS. Although I believe that the documents in the committee’s possession are more than adequate to establish the need for a hearing, more evidence in support of my complaints has arisen through discovery in the court case and otherwise.

“Cahill and Cohen”: now appearing at The Mirage…

Full disclosure to the Committee charged with upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession is necessary to protect both attorneys and public. Except, in New York where “who you know” will dictate what, if any, ethical standards will be enforced, or even reviewed. The only positive thing about the “Sealed Envelope Defense” is that it does save time. Why bother reviewing any documents if the determination of any complaint has been predetermined by Cahill and Cohen, especially after "the phone call" has been made ?
 Just weigh the opposing sealed envelopes and let the weightier envelope prevail. Or better yet, Cahill and Cohn could just place the sealed envelopes of the opposing parties against their foreheads, like the “Amazing Karnac”, and declare the winner by psychic intuition alone. That way, after they are expelled from the DDC, perhaps “Cahill and Cohen” can get an act in Vegas.

QUID PRO QUO

The usual model for corruption is “quid pro quo” arrangement. So what does the DDC get from Beldock, Levine and Hoffman in exchange for throwing the case against them? Consider this: When Cahill’s predecessor Hal Leiberman retired as Chief Counsel to the DDC, he immediately became a partner at the ten-man firm of Beldock Levine and Hoffman. What are the chances?

Will Cahill and Cohen be working for Beldock when they retire (or get out of jail).

There is absolutely no merit to the notion that the DDC can be barred from viewing any evidence in a case, regardless of “client/ attorney privilege” or anything else. Under the theory presented by Mr. Beldock, and accepted by Cahill and Cohen, a client could make a complaint against his former lawyer and prevent that attorney from defending him or herself by citing attorney-client confidentiality.

 According to a former federal investigator familiar with the DDC, and who requested that his identity be withheld, “Cahill and Cohen know full well that the Disciplinary Committee can subpoena, and are entitled to review, absolutely anything and everything concerning the respondent-attorney and the complaint at issue.”

 “Of course, any confidential information needed to conduct a comprehensive review- especially attorney-client material- would be withheld from the complainant- but not from the DDC,” he adds, “The DDC is authorized- indeed, obligated- to review and consider all documents in its investigation of a complaint against an attorney.”



Washington, We Have a Problem 


Thomas Cahill left the Departmental Disciplinary Committee in October and the name of his replacement will be made soon. It is common knowledge within state and federal circles that since he was told to retire, Mr. Cahill used his last few months cleaning up (read: destroying) files.

The Jeffrey Greenberg Complaint is just another startling example of the non-existent oversight, ethics, and enforcement of the rules at a New York State attorney Departmental Disciplinary Committee-- the very entity charged with overseeing ethical standards.

With no accountability, you get the brazen bedlam that is our New York court system. We echo the view of the countless viewers of this forum who have made the call: “Bring in the Feds.” New York needs the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee the affairs of the New York court system.

See for yourself, see the documents to the right, “Sealing the Truth.”
by William Galison