Legal Malpractice

This is a sordid story of a professor who was barred from teaching at a university.  He was accused of making rather coarse sexual comments to students, many of them. While litigating over his potential dismissal, a letter was sent to one witness with a photocopy of the definition of perjury and a suggestion of how she could purge herself of that problem.  To make matters worse, a similar letter was sent to the university secuity department alleging that the witness had committed perjury on campus.

Judge Diamond, of Supreme Court, New York County levied significant sanctions on client and attorney. As the NYLJ reports :

"Mr. Kalyanaram's attorney, Mr. Richman, sent a letter to Ms. Cui that "attached a copy of the penal statute regarding the crime of perjury and then proceeded to advise her that if her allegations against petitioner are untrue, she could be guilty of such a crime," according to the decision.

The letter also stated that "if she changed her affidavit to rectify any untrue statements, she may have a defense to a perjury charge."

Mr. Richman sent a second letter to the directors of the institute's security, which stated he believed Ms. Cui had committed perjury on the school's premises.

Petition Denied

In a decision issued last week, Justice Diamond denied Mr. Kalyanaram's petition for reinstatement and granted the school's motion for sanctions.

"The petitioner's claim herein turns on the sole issue of whether the respondent, in dismissing him prior to the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process, breached the terms of the governing collective bargaining agreement," Justice Diamond wrote. "The respondent's letter to the petitioner specifically stated that . . . he was to remain on the payroll at his regular salary until a final determination had been rendered. Thus, the respondent expressly recognized that petitioner remained an employee until the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process."

In addition, in a scathing analysis of the sanctions issue, the court again found against Mr. Kalyanaram and his attorney Mr. Richman.

"Such threats cannot be countenanced," Justice Diamond wrote. "They are an inappropriate and reprehensible attempt to influence a proceeding and obtain an outcome therein through extra-judicial means. Indeed, the threats are particularly pernicious because they carry the real possibility that even a witness who is otherwise entirely truthful will refrain from giving such testimony in order to avoid being the target of a criminal investigation."