Opinion
May 16, 1996
Appeal from the Civil Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.).
Plaintiff brought this action against defendant law firm to recover payment for services she rendered as "of counsel". Her service of interrogatories directly on one of defendant's clients on whose matter she allegedly worked resulted in an order striking the interrogatories on the ground that "interrogatories may only be served on a party to the action" and warning plaintiff that "further improper contacts of this sort might be sanctionable". A month later, plaintiff wrote letters to two of defendant's clients that confusingly threatened legal action if they did not voluntarily respond to the interrogatories that she had earlier "served" upon them. The interrogatories referred to were the very ones that had been stricken by the court. This obvious attempt to circumvent the court's order cannot possibly be justified on the basis of any ambiguity in the court's order, and was properly sanctioned as a "clear violation of both the letter and spirit" of that order ( 157 Misc.2d 409, 410), and as harassing conduct ( 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]), in probable violation of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-102 (A) (1) ( 22 NYCRR 1200.33 [a] [1]). Plaintiff's claim that the letter must be considered independently of the interrogatories, since it was not the questions themselves but the form of contact and its purported effect that was found objectionable, was properly rejected by the court as "disingenuous" ( 157 Misc.2d, at 410) absent any indication in the letters that the interrogatories had been stricken on the ground that they could not be served on nonparties.
We find the sanction imposed to be excessive to the extent indicated.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.