Friday, October 12, 2007
Daily Record

A lawsuit portrays it as an abuse of power.

George R. Korpita, a municipal judge, made a phone call that a lot of other people probably would have made under similar circumstances. He

called an attorney representing a man who allegedly scratched his Maserati while leaning on it in the parking lot of a Rockaway restaurant.

The man had been arrested that night after allegedly threatening to beat up the judge. Korpita told the attorney that he'd forget about pursuing criminal charges if the man paid for damages.

That sounds reasonable -- hardly the makings of a federal case.

Korpita - a judge in Rockaway, Dover and Victory Gardens -- received a check for $1,484.29 and probably thought that was the end of the matter.

But Warren Hartzman of Dover filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Korpita claiming that the judge misused his position. Hartzman, a securities broker who allegedly feared losing his broker's license if convicted of criminal charges, said in court papers that the judge made a display of "unfettered and immeasurable power." The suit mentions "overt and implied threats" made by the judge.

What threats?

Some of the alleged threats appear to be more about perceptions than facts.

The suit refers to Korpita as the presiding judge in the disorderly persons charge against Hartzman - at least until it was transferred from Rockaway to Denville one month after the May 4 incident outside of Cafe Navona. But even Hartzman's criminal attorney, James Porftdo, said that never was an issue, that

the case never was going to be heard in Rockaway.

Porfido is quoted in the suit as saying that he told Korpita the judge placed him in "an untenable position because of the judge's conflict of interest."

"Those were not my words," Porfido said.

Porfido said he did express concerns about potential conflicts because of other cases he had pending before Korpita. The issue never came up, Porfido said, because Hartzman's case was settled before those cases were scheduled to be heard.

The suit also says that Hartzman was charged with causing a public annoyance "by intentionally scratching Judge Korpita's Maserati."

But according to a police report, he wasn't arrested until after he allegedly made physical threats against the judge. The summons says Hartzman engaged in threatening behavior by scratching the car, leaning on it because he was drunk and cursing and threatening the judge.

A police investigative report says Hartzman allegedly threatened Korpita after they both went inside the restaurant by saying he was going to "kick his (posterior)." It also says Hartzman was so intoxicated that he had trouble walking when police took him outside, where he was arrested and handcuffed. It lists two witnesses who allegedly heard Hartzman threaten the judge.

But the main point of the lawsuit appears to be Korpita's offer to Porfido.

The judge called Porfido and then wrote a letter, according to the lawsuit, saying he would "end the matter" if Hartzman paid him for damages, agreed not to go back to Cafe Navona and apologized.

Hartzman's attorney for the lawsuit, William Pinilis, said neither he nor his client would comment on the case. They said in court papers that Korpita's offer to drop charges in exchange for restitution in a civil matter violated the state's rules of professional conduct for attorneys.

Here's what those rules say: "A lawyer shall not ... present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter."

That's not what happened here.

Korpita wasn't threatening to bring criminal charges against Hartzman. Those charges already had been filed by a police officer. And while there may be some argument about whether state rules of conduct apply in this case, Korpita's letter certainly doesn't come across as sinister.

"I think its perfectly appropriate to say I'll drop the claim if you pay the damages," said John Leubsdorf, a law professor at Rutgers University in Newark who specializes in legal ethics.

Leubsdorf, commenting generally on the application of the rule, said it's meant to prevent attorneys from using blackmail to gain an advantage in a civil matter. He said "it's always appropriate to file criminal charges if there's a reason," but added that it's not OK for attorneys to make threats to coerce someone to

make restitution. Attorneys are not allowed to ask for a civil payment in return for not filing a criminal complaint.

But what about the claim that it's against the rules to drop charges in exchange for such a payment?

"That sounds a little far out," Leubsdorf said.

"He (Korpita) was doing what you would do, or what I would do," said Robert Greenbaum, Korpita's attorney.

Hartzman claims in his lawsuit that Korpita screamed and swore at him in the parking lot of Cafe Navona, calling him an idiot for failing to recognize the value of the Maserati. He says he "may have" leaned on the car but denies scratching it. He claims that Korpita physically threatened him but did not report that to police, even though he was arrested for making an alleged threat. He acknowledges calling the judge "a pompous jerk," among other things.

This was not exactly an exchange of pleasantries.

From Hartzman's perspective, the judge probably seemed to have everything going for him. Korpita's phone call and letter might have seemed threatening to some people. To others, it might have looked like a not-so-unusual offer and the way out of a jam.