In The Matter Of George Louis Farmer An Attorney At Law
Argued: October 18, 2018
Docket No. I-2016-0001E
Dorothy F. McCrosson appeared on behalf of the District I
Respondent appeared pro se, via telephone.
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
matter was before us on a recommendation for an admonition
filed by the District I Ethics Committee (DEC). We determined
to treat the matter as a recommendation for greater
discipline, in accordance with R. 1:20-15(f)(4). The formal
ethics complaint charged respondent with violating
RPC 8.4(g) (engaging, in a professional capacity, in
conduct involving discrimination).
reasons detailed below, we determine to impose a reprimand.
earned admission to the New Jersey and Pennsylvania bars in
1996, and to the Colorado bar in 1999. In 2012, he received
an admonition for engaging in a conflict of interest. In
the Matter of George Louis Farmer, DRB 11-438 (March 27,
2012). During the relevant time frame, respondent maintained
an office for the practice of law in Northfield, Atlantic
County, New Jersey.
April 2013, Al Ciccone retained respondent to pursue a
medical malpractice claim against Dr. Jun Huang, an
optometrist who had performed surgeries on Ciccone's eye.
On July 24, 2013, in connection with the malpractice claim
and in response to certain prior communications between them,
respondent sent an e-mail to Dr. Huang, stating "I have
read your letter. The only thing I can suggest is that you
are either: delusional, a pathological liar, in denial, a
psychopath, or all of the above."
Huang ultimately retained attorney Richard Amdur to defend
Ciccone's malpractice claim. Respondent's October 13,
2013 letter to Amdur forms the basis for this disciplinary
action. In the letter, respondent wrote, in pertinent part:
As you are aware, your client has been accused of doing some
serious, serious deeds of deception and improprieties. There
is no doubt in my mind that he is a pathological liar. He is
a doctor who is held to a higher standard than the normal
person on the street. He has been accused of altering records
in a post hoc effort to lie to try to get away with
his mistakes. As time goes on, it only gets worse for him.
The documents produced in discovery bear this out. He may
think that he is smart and skilled, but his efforts are
One recent example is the contrived letter that his employee
purportedly wrote and signed that was produced during
discovery. It is so obvious that Dr. Huang wrote the letter
(as it is written in broken English) and forced/cajoled his
employee to sign it. It is signed by a Jacqueline Pyle.
However, according to the document produced in discovery as
1-1, JP (Jacqueline Pyle) was assisting on 8/17/11, but not
8/8/11. A different employee whose initials are PF was
assisting on August 8, 2011. See attached ....
Putting aside for the moment that I am still somewhat
idealistic - even in my old age, his efforts initially
baffled me in light of the fact that I did not / cannot
comprehend how someone who worked so hard to achieve what he
has achieved in his life would risk it all by lying and
attempting to cover up his misdoing. However, I am/was not a
student of Chinese culture. So I did a little research and
found that "In fact, lying to achieve some business or
social aim, and getting away with it, is considered to be a
sign of intelligence and social skill among many
o-the-chinese-lie-that-depends/. Also, in the Chinese
culture, "lying has become a means to an end." See
Having read those articles as well as other related articles,
it is starting to make sense to me. Your client's only
problem is that even though he is a doctor, and he thinks
that he can lie his way through this matter, he is not going
to get away with it. I am someone who is smarter than the
average person on the street, and am wise to his nonsense,