David Cubby Jr. of Waldwick, New Jersey, received a three-month suspension for threatening and vitriolic remarks he made to judges and court staff.
Disciplinary authorities brought two separate cases against Cubby.
In the first, from a Disciplinary Review Board decision issued in August 2021, the Supreme Court imposed a censure against Cubby based on findings that he failed to treat persons involved in the legal process with courtesy, engaged in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, made statements about the qualifications of a judge with reckless disregard for the truth thereof, failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In the second case, Cubby drew a three-month suspension for failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, and for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In the first case, Cubby was proceeding pro se in a landlord-tenant action. In a mediation session, he addressed his adversary, Richard Blender, as a “scumbag” for representing landlords, and approached him in a confrontational manner, requiring the mediator to intervene, the DRB said.
Cubby could not be reached for comment.
‘I Have a Hard Time Controlling Myself’
Later, when Cubby represented a nonprofit group in a foreclosure case, Judge Randal Chiocca was issuing a decision from the bench when Cubby repeatedly interrupted and disagreed with the judge. Chiocca told Cubby that he would be asked to leave if he continued interrupting.
Then, when Chiocca said one of Cubby’s arguments was “sheer speculation and innuendo,” Cubby interrupted, saying “unbelievable.” A sheriff’s officer directed Cubby not to interrupt.
As the judge tried to continue, Cubby said, “I have a hard time controlling myself when I see the law being distorted to benefit parties that did wrong. I have a very big problem with that, and I will continue to do so.”
Again, the judge told Cubby to sit down or leave, disciplinary records show the attorney responded, “Your decision, your decision is extrajudicial. There’s nothing here. It’s not based on anything. Nothing about [indiscernable] and now we’ll have to appeal against these clowns, based on absolutely nothing.”
As Chiocca prepared to leave the bench, Cubby said, “My point is you’re corrupt. That’s my point.”
The second case against Cubby, from a DRB decision issued March 15, concerns allegations of attacks and vitriolic behavior against court staff during ethics proceedings.
In that case, a secretary sent Cubby a letter from Ellen Brodsky, who was then counsel to the DRB, via email, informing him that the prior complaint was in default status. His reply accused the Office of Attorney Ethics of bringing false charges against him, and threatening the secretary that she would be held personally liable for furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.
The DRB found that Cubby was “extremely uncooperative and belligerent during the ethics investigation.”
“Not only did he fail to appear for two scheduled demand interviews or to reply, in writing, to the OAE regarding his e-mail to the judiciary secretary, but he also attacked the OAE’s authority to investigate this matter,” the DRB said.
The DRB settled on a three-month suspension in the second case against Cubby, and also required that he comply with a prior order that he demonstrate his fitness to practice law, as attested to by a mental health professional, and complete an anger-management course.
