There is an interesting legal ethics case out of New York involving Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa (left) and his girlfriend, Queens Borough President Melinda Katz (right). It appears that Sliwa, now a radio host making some $400,000 annually, is in the midst of a messy divorce after being accused of adultery. He has been sending confidential legal communications without realizing that his wife, Mary Sliwa was being blind copied on the messages. Paul Siegert, her lawyer, however, insists that it is the fault of Curtis Sliwa and neither he nor his client had any obligation to let him know of the breach of confidentiality or refrain from reading the confidential communications.
Sliwa discussed the options of pursuing a Manhattan Supreme Court case in the emails. His counsel Alton Abramowitz expressed outrage and charged that “Mr. Siegert had a professional obligation not to read those emails and to advise me that she was intercepting them since at least August 2013.”
In response, Siegert insisted that “These were sent to her voluntarily — by Curtis Sliwa to my client . . . She was blind copied. Curtis just happened to forget.” Many would see an obvious conflict in those two statements. Usually an unknowing act is not viewed as truly voluntary. More inadvertent than voluntary.
What is particularly interesting is that this was precisely what got Sliwa in trouble to begin with. Mary was automatically bcc’d on every email as his office head. She also had the password to his voicemails and discovered messages revealing the long affair between Sliwa and Katz. That makes both adulterers, but it does not appear to be a problem for Katz in her political career or a problem of Sliwa with his arch conservative audience. Sliwa also sought to sharply cut child support for their special needs son, Anthony.
It gets even more bizarre. Mary is reportedly suing to get back child support paid by Sliwa to Katz — who has two children with Curtis Sliwa. The litigation has focused on whether the children were conceived by artificial insemination before the marriage to Mary or whether it was the product of the long affair between the two celebrities.
Now back to the legal ethics issue. Siegert will reportedly be the subject of a motion to disqualify him and to impose a fine on him for his conduct.
The Rules are clear on the obligation of notice and the general rule on not reviewing material known to be sent inadvertently. Here is the conclusions of a formal opinion from the bar in 2004:
This opinion examines the various approaches to these issues and concludes that a lawyer receiving a misdirected communication containing confidences or secrets (1) has obligations to promptly notify the sending attorney, to refrain from review of the communication, and to return or destroy the communication if so requested, but, (2) in limited circumstances, may submit the communication for in camera review by a tribunal, and (3) is not ethically barred from using information gleaned prior to knowing or having reason to know that the communication contains confidences or secrets not intended for the receiving lawyer. However, it is essential as an ethical matter that the receiving attorney promptly notify the sending attorney of the disclosure in order to give the sending attorney a reasonable opportunity to promptly take whatever steps he or she feels are necessary.
Indeed, the bar flagged how this is now a recurring problem with new technology like email and the Internet: “As advances in technology have made communication easier, so too they have made mistakes in transmission of those communications easier as well.” The bar noted that some states only require notification. See, e.g., Maine Prof. Ethics Comm. of the Bd. of Overseers, Opinion 146 (Dec. 9, 1994); Florida Bar Ass’n Comm. on Prof’l Ethics Opinion 93-3 (Feb. 7, 1994). Still others have endorsed alternative obligations, requiring notice and return when the receiving lawyer is aware that the disclosure is inadvertent (as per ABA Opinion 92-368), but requiring only notice (as per Model Rule 4.4(b)) when the receiving lawyer reviews a communication before realizing that its disclosure was inadvertent. See, e.g., Colorado Bar Ass’n Ethics Comm. Opinion 108 (May 20, 2000).
The bar left the possibility of an exception but not on the notice issue and generally requires that counsel not review the material:
we conclude that a receiving lawyer has obligations under the New York Code to notify, return and refrain from review of inadvertent disclosures, particularly when considering the duties of a lawyer not to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, to preserve client confidences and secrets and to represent clients with zeal but within the confines of the law. At the same time, we concur with those authorities finding that a blanket proscription on use of inadvertent disclosures in all situations extends too far. Accordingly, we acknowledge that there are limited circumstances where ethical rules alone do not bar use of such information, particularly where, as more specifically set forth below, the receiving attorney has a good faith basis to argue that inadvertent disclosure has resulted in waiver of a privilege or where the receiving attorney has been exposed to confidential information prior to knowing or having reason to know that the communication was misdirected.
The exception is stated as to use rather than notice — leaving a serious problem for Siegert. It does not appear that notice was given. To the contrary, they appear to have knowingly continued to receive the inadvertent emails like manna from heaven, or at least their guardian angel.
18 thoughts on “Curtis Sliwa Charges Ex-Wife and Her Counsel With Intercepting Confidential Communications”
P. Siegert – I am the attorney involved and smiled at the comment of Rafflaw that I am “dirty”. I have been an attorney for 41 years, have always been in good standing, and believe that my actions were well within the bounds of law and ethical considerations. What no one knew at the time of Professor Turley’s well written article and the comments made was that in April, 2013, during the litigation, Curtis Sliwa sent an email directly to his wife (from the same email account) saying, “Please don’t respond by email, because there are number of people who have access to this account . . . .” He admitted that the employer owned computer located at his workplace was not secure with a number of people having access. Yet he used that same computer and email account to exchange emails with his lawyers and, in the process, blind-copied by client. I was not directly coied or inadvertently sent emails by Mr. Sliwa or his lawyer. They cam directly from my client. I had a duty to preserve the confidences of my client who was receiving these emails and gathering evidence and had no duty to notify his lawyer to the detriment of my client. Rafflaw . . . if you want to apologize, it is accepted. If you don’t, come to NYC and we’ll have a beer together and discuss it.
Right on the spot, bettykath
The email was sent from the estranged spouse to his client and there is no evidence? that any of the lawyers received any emails. No obligation to inform as there is nothing to inform. Using the information from his client might carry an obligation to inform under some other ruling?( I’m no lawyer.)
The opinion says “has obligations to promptly notify the sending attorney”. There is no sending attorney. All communications are from his client’s estranged spouse. Yes, it’s a technicality, but the law is the law, sometimes flawed.
Sure, the attorney waited a long time before revealing the information, and I’m not a lawyer so someone will have to correct me, but isn’t the initial fault Sliwa’s? If he was incautious (dumb) enough not to know that he was BCCing
his wife, then isn’t he the one who was literally caught with his pants down?
Dog forbid that the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth ever see the light of day in any legal matters, that everyone may actually know about it!
A divorce is an equity case…. Or court of chancellery…. All of the information obtained is discoverable …. I see nothing the attorney or wife did that was deceptive….. I don’t see where this is sanctionable action. If the guy is gonna be that stupid to make admissions in an email…. He should get what he got ….
Now if the wife had hacked into his private email then that’d be a different story…. He mistakenly bc’d her….
It seems the attorney went quite a long way to let the stream of material flow into his hands. This doesn’t appear to be a lone e-Mail among thousands of documents. I might see that one being overlooked but the systemic use as alleged here is certainly unethical and perhaps sanctionable.
Doesn’t sound like the military NSA is populated by attorneys.
So, I’m guessing Oscar Wilde would not abide gay marriage, @ least for himself.
They both need to read more Oscar Wilde:
The one charm about marriage is that it makes a life of deception absolutely necessary for both parties.
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” ~ Sir Walter Scott
Any woman insecure enough to be involved with Sliwa deserves what she gets. The man is a loud-mouthed right – wing nut whose only concern is advancing his career.
I’m not so sure unless the attorney was directly copied by the sender….. This is a messy divorce… Custody and parentage and support are at issue….. Generally has an incentive to settle cases….. Maybe they should adopt the divorce philosophy of hank the Duce….. Never complain, never explain…. Where this involved a prenup that prevented large chunks of henery ford the 2nd if the spouse had an affair…. He caught his in an affair… A divorce petition was filed…. He denied any affairs… On the morning set for a full blown evidentiary hearing…. Her attorneys provided file boxs of his affairs, pictures… Affidavits…. Etc…. Needless to say the case settled that day….. When asked by the press about his change of position…. He stated… Never complain, never explain…. And walked away…..
The only thing better in this case…. If you don’t have a judge on the take…. It’s always better if the other side has a stupid client….
Emails and Fax I receive from attorneys have the boilerplate “If received in error…”
Everyone wants to be a double-naught spy anymore.
Mr. Siegert is dirty and he needs to be sanctioned, at the very least.
Comments are closed.