Speak your mind in the wrong forum? It will cost you. Fail to supervise your employees? A price will be paid.

The practice of law in New York demands professionalism, adherence to ethical standards, and careful supervision of legal work product. The Appellate Term’s decision in Promed Durable Equipment, Inc. v GEICO Insurance delivers a stark reminder of these obligations, imposing sanctions on an attorney for inflammatory language in appellate briefs while simultaneously holding a supervising attorney accountable for failing to review work submitted under her firm’s name.

This case presents dual cautionary tales for legal practitioners. First, attorneys who include intemperate criticism of judicial decisions in their briefs risk professional sanctions and damage to their advocacy. Second, law firm principals who allow subordinates to submit work without adequate review face potential disciplinary consequences, even when they did not personally author the problematic content. The decision underscores that responsibility for legal work product extends beyond the drafter to those whose names appear on filings.

The intersection of professional responsibility and effective advocacy has become increasingly important in no-fault insurance litigation, where high-volume practice can tempt attorneys to cut corners on supervision. Understanding the boundaries of zealous advocacy while maintaining supervisory obligations remains essential for practitioners in this field.

Case Background

Promed Durable Equip., Inc. As Assignee of Shavonne Flinch v Geico Ins., 2014 NY Slip Op 72449(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2014)

The case arose from a no-fault insurance dispute involving durable medical equipment claims. However, the substantive merits became secondary when the Appellate Term addressed attorney conduct that crossed the line from zealous advocacy into inappropriate attacks on the judiciary itself. Attorney Vitarelli submitted briefs containing language that disparaged the Appellate Term’s decision-making processes and impugned the court’s impartiality.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

You can read this. From the opinion (a quotation from the offending brief): “the recent Park Slope decision is replete with foundationless claims and misunderstandings of both law and argument. The funny thing is there is nothing to be done about it, except go to the Court of Appeals given the unavailability of the Appellate Division, Second Department. It seems clear from discussion with Plaintiff firms and judges that there is an agreement that this Appellate Term will redefine the laws of evidence in order to suit the insurance company business model, while at the same time the Appellate Division will not accept cases from the Appellate Term.”

While the text of what was said was perhaps overboard, the substance might have merit. See Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95 (2013)

And as an employer, keep your eyes open: “With respect to Ilona Finkelshteyn, Esq., the name of whose law firm appears on each brief submitted by Mr. Vitarelli, the court finds that “in the exercise of reasonable management or supervisory authority, knew or should have known” of Mr. Vitarelli’s conduct (Matter of Berkman, 55AD3d 114, 117 ) and failed, under the circumstances, to adequately supervise the work submitted by Mr. Vitarelli, which bore Ms. Finkelshteyn’s name (see Matter of Shapiro, 55 AD3d 291 ).”

Legal Significance

This decision reinforces several important principles in legal practice. The court’s willingness to sanction attorneys for inappropriate brief language demonstrates that zealous advocacy has clear boundaries. Attorneys cannot cloak personal attacks on judicial integrity in the guise of legal argument. The citation to Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95, suggests that while attorneys may disagree with judicial rulings and argue for their reversal, the manner of presenting such disagreement must remain within professional bounds.

The supervisory responsibility component carries equally significant weight. Under New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, law firm principals bear affirmative obligations to supervise subordinate attorneys and ensure that work product meets professional standards. The court’s holding that Ms. Finkelshteyn “knew or should have known” of the problematic content establishes that supervisory attorneys cannot claim ignorance of submissions bearing their firm’s name. This creates practical implications for law firms handling high volumes of cases, particularly in no-fault practice where multiple associates may draft appellate papers.

Practical Implications

For attorneys practicing in New York’s no-fault insurance arena, this decision carries several practical lessons. First, frustration with adverse decisions—however strongly felt—must be channeled into professional advocacy rather than personal attacks on the judiciary. Disagreement with precedent should be expressed through careful legal analysis and citations to contrary authority, not inflammatory rhetoric questioning judicial motivations.

Second, law firm principals must implement effective quality control measures. Simply placing one’s name on a brief without reviewing its contents creates exposure to professional discipline. Firms should establish procedures ensuring that supervising attorneys actually review substantive submissions, particularly appellate briefs where procedural defects or inappropriate language can have lasting consequences.

Third, the decision serves as a reminder that the no-fault bar operates under the same professional standards as all other practice areas. The volume-driven nature of no-fault litigation does not excuse lapses in professionalism or supervision.

Key Takeaway

Attorneys must balance zealous advocacy with professional decorum. Inflammatory language criticizing judicial decisions crosses ethical boundaries and invites sanctions. Law firm principals bear supervisory responsibility for all work submitted under their names, regardless of who actually drafted the content. Effective supervision requires actual review of legal work product, not merely allowing one’s name to appear on submissions without examination.

Related Articles

• Written opposition – the key to beating people on procedural defects
• First Department Legal Decisions: Impact on No-Fault Practice and New York Legal Practitioners
• Civil Court Decisions in No-Fault Insurance: When Legal Reasoning Goes Wrong
• An expert’s opinion that relies on an unsworn MRI report constitutes competent evidence
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law