Rhode Island Divorce Tips by Attorney Chris Pearsall

Rhode Island Divorce Information, Divorce Articles, Divorce Attorneys, Lawyers and Tips

Judicial Abuse
October 18, 2008
Good Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys Fall Prey to a Judge With Her Own Agenda!

It goes without saying that clients of Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys bear their own set of risks
when it comes to having their cases heard before justices and magistrates of the Rhode Island
Family Court. It is the nature of the beast of our legal system. Nothing that is worth fighting or
arguing for comes without its risks and Rhode Island Divorce Attorneys are no exception. But
make no mistake about it, the price a Rhode Island Divorce Attorney may pay for zealously
representing you may be greater than you might imagine. For a Rhode Island divorce attorney
in the early years of building a law practice a judge has the power to ruin a legal career, even
one built on hard work, integrity and high moral standards.
Enter Associate Judge Laureen D'Ambra to the Rhode Island Family Court bench. Appointed
for life, Associate Judge Laureen D'Ambra was entrusted with Washington County Family
Court's Domestic Calendar covering not only divorce and child support matters but also
placement and protection from abuse matters prior to the September 1, 2008 rotation of
judges.
Entrusted with the various cases and controversies presented before her, Judge Laureen
D'Ambra had a broader obligation to consider, not just to the individuals present in her
courtroom but also how her decisions affected the broader family unit.
Sadly, I was only one of many attorneys practicing divorce law in Rhode Island who discovered
all too quickly that Judge Laureen D'Ambra was ill-prepared for the Washington County
Domestic Calendar. Judge D'Ambra's lack of fundamental knowledge about divorce
proceedings and family law principles of Rhode Island Domestic Relations Law was evident in
statements she boldly professed on and "off the record" of the court.
It goes without saying that more senior and knowledgeable judges such as Judge Stephen J.
Capineri and Judge Howard I. Lipsey, and magistrates such as Magistrate John J. O'Brien, Jr.
and Magistrate Jeanne L. Shepard would not make not such statements. This is not purely
based upon their experience but because they make concerted efforts to know the law
entrusted to them and they remain informed about cases affecting their decisions.
In my humble opinion, a true jurist realizes both the power and responsibility that has been
entrusted to him or her. Though perhaps reasonably unfamiliar with constantly changing
procedures and policies in the family court system, a true jurist is nonetheless cognizant of the
fundamental statutes and case law that will factor into the decisions the jurist will deal with on
a daily basis during his or her tenure.
To the average citizen, the family courts are the embodiment of justice for family related issues
within Rhode Island. Citizens reasonably and rightfully expect that judges and magistrates will
undertake their duties in such a way that the law will be upheld and that justice will be afforded
to those who come before the family court in honesty looking for it.
Family law practitioners not jaded by long continued practices that hold lawyers up as icons of
disrepute may likewise hope to strengthen the public view by promoting justice in their cases.
However, as Socrates spoke in one of his countless orations, "It is not uncommon for two
people of similar mind to disagree as to the meaning of something upon which two minds
would be expected not to differ." Thus, it is most certainly reasonable that neither Rhode
Island Divorce Attorneys nor their clients will always agree with the decisions made by the
judges and magistrates of the Rhode Island family court, including Associate Justice Laureen
D'Ambra.
There is, however, a substantial difference between a jurist who makes decisions reasonably in
conformity with the law and those who make decisions with a total disregard for the law or
worse yet a lack of knowledge of the area of law in which they are expected to serve the public.
After more than a year of contemplation following an event I was subjected to by Associate
Justice Laureen D'Ambra I have decided that my story is a tale best told to illuminate Rhode
Islanders and fellow Rhode Island practitioners of the possible dangers of practice here in
Rhode Island and particularly before Associate Justice Laureen D'Ambra.
In July of 2007, I was the attorney for the defendant in the divorce of Sullivan v. Sullivan
before Associate Justice Laureen D'Ambra.
Prior to the beginning of the trial, I raised an issue regarding property held in Mrs. Sullivan's
name in Connecticut during the marriage. I expressed to the court that it was my intention to
prove that the Connecticut property had been co-mingled with marital assets, that the
Defendant had worked on the property and thereby enriched it and that the Connecticut
property was, in fact, a marital asset.
The result? Prior to hearing any evidence and seemingly unaware of case law regarding this
issue Justice D'Ambra asked one question.
Justice D'Ambra: "Is Mr. Sullivan's name on the deed to the property?"
Attorney Pearsall: "No, but . . . [cut off by the judge]"
Justice D'Ambra: "Then he's not getting any of it and I don't want to hear it at trial."
At the beginning of the plaintiff's case in the trial, the Plaintiff called a Connecticut resident to
the stand. A subpoena was issued and served upon the Plaintiff's witness requiring him to
return to court to be called by the Defendant in the Defendant's case-in-chief as is his right.
Opposing counsel objected that it was burdensome to require the witness to return to court
when he was there at the moment. Despite the prejudice to Mr. Sullivan, Judge D'Ambra
unilaterally quashed the subpoena and told the witness he did not have to return. Judge
D'Ambra then insisted that I ask all my questions of the witness upon cross-examination,
thereby limiting me to the scope of direct examination questions. It also prevented me from
the additional time to gain additional information about the witnesses' testimony to attack his
testimony and impeach his credibility.
On one particular date scheduled for trial Mr. Sullivan was shaking his head and passed me
notes about various issues as is typical in court proceedings as clients make notes on issues and
particular points they believe needs to be addressed. As I recall it was Judge D'Ambra's
attempt to force the parties, particularly Mr. Sullivan, into a settlement and it conveniently
took place "off the record." During the discussion, Judge D'Ambra stopped and addressed my
client, Mr. Sullivan, directly.
Though brief, the exchange was as follows:
Judge D'Ambra: "What is your problem, Mr. Sullivan?"
Mr. Sullivan: Um..ah...[sitting there stunned].
Judge D'Ambra: "What do you want out of this Mr. Sullivan?"
Mr. Sullivan: [Looking at me for approval to speak.]
Attorney Pearsall: [Knodding for Mr. Sullivan to stand and speak.]
Mr. Sullivan: "I want to tell my story. I want to tell what really happened."
Judge D'Ambra: "Well that's not going to happen. You're not going to get to tell your story."
Significantly, the plaintiff called a witness on the first day of trial from Connecticut. The man
was her ex-husband with whom I knew from case research had continual contact and business
dealings with Mrs. Sullivan.
My client was certain the ex-husband lied and that documentation could be obtained to proved
that he had lied on major issues. A subpoena was issued and served upon the ex-husband in
Rhode Island to call him in the presentation of our case.
As legal practitioners know, service within the state's geographical boundaries creates
jurisdiction over the witness and requires the witness to appear.
Despite our right to call this witness in the case-in-chief, Judge D'Ambra quashed the
subpoena and limited me to cross-examination of the witness thereby prejudicing Mr.
Sullivan's case and compromising his right to call witnesses in support of his case.
However, these were minor in comparison to what was to occur to me and would continue to
the present date.
Several days into the trial, specifically on Monday, July 23, 2007 at approximately 2 p.m. we
were to begin the second day of Mr. Sullivan's case in chief.
I walked into court prepared to question the next witness. Suddenly Judge D'Ambra took on a
serious tone and called witnesses, specifically the assistant court clerk, the clerk of court and
one of the sheriff's who testified that they smelled marijuana emanating from me on the
previous Friday that the judge had heard Mr. Sullivan's testimony.
It took me more than a few minutes from the shock to realize what was occurring, not only
in front of witnesses, counsel and sheriffs but BY them.

I requested immediate drug testing in the Providence Family Court to prove the allegations
false and that is precisely what occurred an hour later. I was cleared of any marijuana on the
previous Friday due to marijuana's latency in the human system.
It was perhaps most shocking because I have been an anti-drug advocate on all levels since my
teenage years and I remain so today. Those who know me know that I am the last person who
would ever be accused of drug use.
However, the full nature of what happened can only be appreciated by reading the transcript of
the proceeding and reading this complete posting.
Shortly I will post the transcript which is a matter of public record and explain the aftermath of
what in my opinion was a tremendous act of judicial misconduct by Judge D'Ambra and what I
believe was a strategic move as well.

July 23, 2007 D'Ambra Judicial Abuse Transcript

It is perhaps the events that followed after I sped to Providence and thought I cleared my name
by a completely "clean screen" for any form of drug or alcohol use that became most
troublesome.
The following day, unbeknownst to me, Mr. Sullivan had been directly corresponding with the
opposing counsel, Attorney Lise Iwon regarding the case without contacting me. Mr. Sullivan
stated there was an exchange of proposed settlements while I still remained his counsel of
record.
I would not and could not continue as Mr. Sullivan's attorney on ethical grounds and filed a
Motion to Withdraw with the court. While the court was held up with another matter Mr.
Sullivan formally terminated my services so that he could speak with Attorney Iwon about
settling the case.
I approached Judge D'Ambra and presented the original test results showing that I had tested
"clean" by the Rhode Island Family Court's lab system.
The form was quickly taken from me by Judge D'Ambra herself.
No apology.
No statement on the record about the proceedings.
I was excused and Judge D'Ambra noticeably made sure I had exited the courtroom before she
continued with the proceedings which were settled that day by Mr. Sullivan and Attorney Lise
Iwon under terms that in my professional opinion were horrendous and which compromised a
civil action Mr. Sullivan had commenced in Superior Court.
In fact, Mr. Sullivan had on a prior occasion vehemently rejected terms similar to those finally
agreed to which settled the case on the record. Later Mr. Sullivan would blame me for the
settlement he himself agreed to with Attorney Lise Iwon.
Then, to my shock Mr. Sullivan filed a disciplinary complaint against me with the Professional
Conduct Committee.
This complaint against me was later dismissed as having no basis.
Yet the story doesn't end here, rather this was just the beginning. What followed should be of
interest both to Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers and to individuals who come before Judge
D'Ambra in any divorce matter.
Within five (5) days after July 23, 2007, the date on which the accusations were made against
me, I was receiving calls from colleagues asking what happened with Judge D'Ambra.
Within seven (7) days, I began to receive my first cancellations from confirmed consultations
most of whom cited rumors that I had drug addictions and they could not risk their family law
matter on a lawyer who was subject to such rumors.
Within the tenth (10th) and fourteenth (14th) days following July 23, 2008, I was in various
courts sitting behind numerous attorneys who conveyed the story of the allegations to each
other. Many of these attorneys did not know me by sight and were unaware that I was sitting
right behind them.
In one case, a practitioner stated that I had been accused of being on marijuana during the
course of a trial and that it was uncertain as to what I did or if I had cleared my name.
[October 18, 2008 Update: To insure others that this incident contained entirely bogus
allegations against me, I have included the uploaded image of the drug testing results page.
It should be noted that I requested that I be allowed to immediately leave for the
Providence Family Court. I also asked when I arrived that the head of the testing unit, John
Coyne, conduct the test to insure there was no question as to the result.]
July 23, 2007 Negative Drug Test Results
In another instance I overheard three practitioners who did not know me by sight discussing it
and the allegations were not of marijuana use but rather that I had been using "cocaine" during
a trial and there were concerns that I might have to be restrained when allegations came to
light.
In yet another instance, the story escalated that it had been determined that I was a "heroine
addict" due to my abnormal performance in court and Judge D'Ambra had ordered me to go
for random drug testing.
In another case, I was simply a drug addict and Judge D'Ambra had addressed my conduct on
the record and it was uncertain if a complaint would be filed against me with the Professional
Conduct Committee or if disbarment might be considered.
Now keep in mind, that within 2 weeks I went from representing a client in a trial to being
accused of marijuana use, which was escalated by legal colleagues to cocaine and heroine due
to Judge Laureen D'Ambra's one action which was now destroying my reputation and my legal
practice.
Within 5 weeks, I had lost approximately more than a dozen consultations and one existing
client who felt the rumors might carry over to the chances of success in the case.
My office phone stopped ringing. I heard court clerks, courtroom sheriff's and even judges
discussing the matter. The allegations and the fact that I had cleared myself added nothing to
the situation because no one checked on the "facts". Clearly rumor and conjecture have more
value among some legal colleagues in the Rhode Island Bar than evidence and truth.
[October 18, 2008 Update: Even now, almost 1 1/2 years later, I received calls both this
week and last week from prospective clients with established consultation dates that the
consultations were being canceled because each woman had been told by a divorce attorney
during a free consultation that I had been accused of a drug addiction by a family court
judge. The prospective clients would not provide the attorney's names but stated that their
cases were too important to take the chance that it might be true. Yes, the cancellations
and reasons I was given were virtually identical.]
Our economy was beginning to worsen and my demise at the hands of Judge D'Ambra came at
the worst time possible. By association the colleagues in my "office share" suffered as well.
With little left to lose, I filed a Complaint with the Commission on Judicial Tenure and
Discipline against Judge D'Ambra. An investigator was assigned to the case and I was
informed that a subcommittee was formed to review the facts of the case. I was told I would be
interviewed. In fact, I informed the Commission on Judicial Tenure and Discipline and their
chosen investigator that I had additional evidence, which if necessary could be presented at
hearing and/or to the investigator when it came time for my interview.
My Complaint against Judge D'Ambra related to her direct violation of the Judicial Canons in
at least three instances.
After seven months of what I can only suspect amounted to stalling and allowing the matter to
grow stale, I received a call from the Commission's investigator to "soften the blow" that I
would be receiving a letter of dismissal from the Commission regarding my complaint. At no
time was I interviewed.
The Commission could find no basis after "investigation" for my complaint. A copy of my
Complaint against Judge D'Ambra to the Commission on Judicial Discipline and Tenure is
attached for public consideration and comment. I have included the dismissal letter as a
matter of completeness.
August 24, 2007 Complaint Against Judge Laureen D'Ambra
February 28, 2008 Dismissal of Complaint Against Judge Laureen D'Ambra

In my opinion, the Judicial Canons cited in my complaint against Judge Laureen D'Ambra are
neither complex, nor are they subject to multiple interpretations. In fact, if they are
viewed using their plain language is done under Rhode Island law in both contractual
interpretation and statutory interpretation there is no doubt as to what they provide and
what they require.
Yet despite the content of the Judicial Canons I cited in my complaint against Judge Laureen
D'Ambra, the Committee on Judicial Discipline and Tenure when simply viewing the
transcript itself against the allegations made, found no basis and dismissed my complaint.
Review of the laws and procedures of our state both by myself and colleagues who found
Judge D'Ambra's conduct aggregious left me with the unmistakable legal conclusion that I
had no recourse for the destruction of my reputation and my law practice. No right of
appeal. No right to examine the "investigation materials or report". Not even the right to
know how the Committee reached the conclusion that there was no basis for my complaint.
Though I am well aware of the principle for judicial immunity and the reasons for its
existence, I find it reprehensible that Judge D'Ambra could create nothing short of a
"probable cause hearing" in open court and remain immune to any sort of action for conduct
that has caused the virtual destruction of my reputation and practice, something I have
spent a lifetime to achieve.
Yet there is more to this story than one might see at first glance.
Prior to this trial I had heard more than my share of rumors that the members of the Rhode
Island Supreme Court were less than happy with Judge Laureen D'Ambra's decisions while she
was on the domestic calendar in the Washington County Family Court. Mind you, these are
just rumors. However, short of asking the good justices of our Rhode Island Supreme court
whether they were true or not, they were rumors I could not confirm.
The rumors I was privy to were simply that Judge D'Ambra was simply not well versed in
divorce and Rhode Island Domestic relations law (aside from juvenile matters) and as a
result more than the usual number of cases were being appealed to the Rhode Island
Supreme Court due to her lack of knowledge of divorce and family law and were resulting in
decisions without basis from which the conclusion was drawn that Judge D'Ambra was
essentially wasting the Rhode Island Supreme Court's time simply by remaining uninformed
of the law in the area of divorce law.
I was well aware that these were only rumors and I was not about to take such utterances
here and there as fact. Judge D'Ambra would get the benefit of the doubt from me
regarding her abilities until she proved otherwise. The Sullivan Case was the test that
proved otherwise and I believe the exchanges I have provided above give only a small
evidence of that.
During the course of the Sullivan Trial, I stated to Attorney Lise Iwon that my client would
not settle, that he wanted his day in court and that I would appeal the decision. As the trial
continued I noticed more and more rulings that I believed constituted reversible error and
violated Mr. Sullivan's rights. Attorney Iwon and Judge D'Ambra continued to press for
settlement of the case. I continued to stand firm for Mr. Sullivan both with the court and
with Attorney Iwon. The more I stood firm for Mr. Sullivan, the more Attorney Lise Iwon
continued to preach to the court that I was wasting the court's time because I was going to
appeal the judge's decision anyway.
On July 20, 2007 I put my client on the stand to begin the Defendant's case. Surprisingly, my
client was incoherent and rambled. Rather than simply follow my counsel and answer my
questions, he expressed his desire simply to talk on the stand. Of course I was aware that
this would not be allowed. Mr. Sullivan had his own idea as to how he wanted the trial to
go. As a result, he did not answer common questions in a coherent manner, tried to divert
his answers on tangents that were irrelevant to the case without foundation, and he failed
to identify documents fundamental to his case which he was familiar with. Seeing the
client's inability to focus on his case as my questions would direct him I stated that I had no
further questions for the witness.
As the transcript bears out, Mr. Sullivan was shocked and angry that he wasn't able to tell
his story the way he wanted to tell it. So Mr. Sullivan tried to call Judge D'Ambra on July
23, 2007 to state that he was upset and to try to make an excuse that I may have been
impaired on July 20th and it would not be fair for him not to be able to have more time on
the witness stand to tell his story. It was at that juncture that I later learned that Mr.
Sullivan began faxing settlement proposals to Attorney Lise Iwon directly. At no time did
either Mr. Sullivan or Attorney Iwon give me any notice that this was occurring.
Of course, the maxim applies that when all else fails . . . blame the attorney. Mr. Sullivan
certainly took that to heart. In fact, Mr. Sullivan called my wife to complain about me and
find out the results of my drug testing though he claimed he called due to concern about my
health.
Could Mr. Sullivan's call on July 23rd have given Judge D'Ambra precisely what she needed to
stop the trial and force a settlement so ?
Think about it.
If you have a speeding locomotive, how do you stop it? You take out the locomotive's
engine, right?!
Well, if Mr. Sullivan's lawyer who intends to appeal is suddenly out of the picture it reduces
the probability of an appeal, doesn't it?
That reduces the chances of further disapproval and/or embarrassment before the Rhode
Island Supreme Court Justices, don't you think?
No appeal. . . that means one less case to hurt Judge D'Ambra's reputation. Makes sense if
those rumors were true now doesn't it?!
Now follow me as I put a little speculative puzzle together here. Keep in mind that I used to
be a paralegal investigator for 12 years before I became an attorney.
Mr. Sullivan tries to call Judge D'Ambra without discussing it with me. Mr. Sullivan speaks
with the assistant clerk, in the Washington County Family Court, Sharon.
During the call Mr. Sullivan makes statements that his counsel (me) must have been impaired
or something must be wrong with me because he didn't get to say what he wanted to on the
witness stand. That's on the morning of July 23, 2007.
I didn't receive a call from Judge D'Ambra out of any professional courtesy. I wasn't called
into the Judge's chambers to address any issue regarding any incapacity on my part, etc...
Nothing! The doors were closed in the courtroom. An extra officer was at the back of the
room. I was even told that an officer was directly behind me as Judge D'Ambra began
putting the allegations and testimony on the record with both attorneys and laypeople in the
courtroom.
The first person who testifies within the transcript is Sharon DiSandro, the deputy clerk at
that time in the Washington County Family Court Clerk's Office. Miss DiSandro provided
hearsay testimony about what Mr. Sullivan (who was standing next to me) stated in a
conversation alleged to have been made to her at 9:30 a.m. that morning.
It is noteworthy that, Judge Laureen D'Ambra placed all of this testimony on the record
about Mr. Sullivan's call though Mr. Sullivan himself was present a mere 15 feet from Judge
D'Ambra.
As can be noted in the transcript itself, Judge D'Ambra literally directed the testimony of
those persons in the court staff.
Secondarily, Judge D'Ambra directs testimony next to her Sheriff by her own inquiry? The
Sheriff who was present however states "I related to you a concern that was brought to my
attention in confidence."
Judge D'Ambra actually places on the record double hearsay as the Sheriff relates something
to the court that someone else persumably relayed to him. It is, in fact, a person who is
unidentified who had stated that I appeared to be smelling of marijuana. No mention is
made of who this person is, where the location was, when this occurred and so on.
At no time was I given the opportunity to question these witnesses as Judge D'Ambra
directed these people so quickly as if each portion of testimony were planned and/or
rehearsed.
In fact, Denise Dupre, the Clerk of the Washington County Family Court then chimed in
quickly that she too had observed the smell of marijuana coming from me on July 20th, that
she was in the clerk's office at the time and that I had stopped there at about 1:45 p.m.
when she allegedly noticed it.
As I mentioned and as the transcript reflects, I requested that I be allowed to go to
Providence Family Court to have a drug testing done in order to prove that falsity of the
allegations. However, let me diverge from the transcript to make a few factual insights that
I am personally aware of.
First, on July 20, 2007 I was running late and did not get to the courthouse until
approximately 2:10 p.m. I remember this distinctly since Mr. Sullivan was a nervous wreck
and I had told him to be there by 2 p.m. and he was not happy that I was late because I had
to get gasoline. My charge receipts show that I did, in fact, purchase gasoline for my car at
a gas station some distance away from the Washington County Family Courthouse and
therefore I could not have been at the courthouse at the time proposed by the Clerk, Denise
Dupre.
Second, I did not see Denise Dupre at all on July 20, 2007 nor did I stop at the family court
clerk's office on that date, which is the date I was alleged to be impaired. If Miss Dupre was
in the clerk's office and even assuming for the sake of argument that I smelled like anything
then she would have had to have smelled it on me from a distance of 15 to 20 feet away as I
walked down the middle of the hallway (as is my habit) through an opening at the bottom of
the plate glass which is roughly 7 inches in height. Thus, either Miss Dupre was smelling
someone else who actually did stop at the clerk's office, has the acute sense of smell of a
bloodhound or her testimony was fabricated to aid Judge D'Ambra in tanking Mr. Sullivan's
case.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, numerous exhibits were entered into evidence on July
20, 2007. On that date I was walking briskly back and forth between the courtroom clerk,
the judge, Mr. Sullivan as the witness and Attorney Lise Iwon at counsel table with her client
regarding the various exhibits.
Judge Laureen D'Ambra did not state or otherwise indicate that she noted any smell of
marijuana on me, nor did Mr. Sullivan, nor did Attorney Lise Iwon, nor did Attorney Iwon's
client, Ellie Sullivan, but most importantly the courtroom clerk on that date, did not note
any indication either of anything wrong with me or any smell of marijuana emanating from
me.
Here you may draw your own conclusions if you like. I have drawn my own opinions about
Judge D'Ambra and about the Commission on Judicial Discipline and Tenure who are
supposed to protect me and my brethren from exactly this sort of conduct.
The Sullivan Case ended on the day after the allegations, July 24, 2007, and I believe it
ended just as Judge D'Ambra intended, with a settlement and not an appealable decision.
As to those who falsely testified against me, I leave them to their own consciences and the
knowledge that the damage they have caused to my reputation and my law practice
continues to this date.
As to the Commission on Judicial Discipline and Tenure, I recommend that your members
look over your own decisions over the years where even Magistrate O'Brien has been
censured for significantly minor acts in comparison to what Judge Laureen D'Ambra's act has
done to my reputation and to my practice.
I write now because other attorneys need and deserve to know that by the dismissal of my
complaint the Commission on Judicial Discipline and Tenure has sanctioned Judge D'Ambra's
actions.
Members of our Rhode Island Bar, you can now expect that a Judge can take such offensive
and injurious actions outside the scope of the judicial authority of their court and destroy an
individual's practice and reputation without any fear that he or she will be held accountable
for any damage caused by such ignorance or violation of the ethical Canons.
In closing, I find it interesting that neither I, nor the courtroom clerk that was actually in the
courtroom on July 20, 2007 were ever interviewed. I know this because I inquired of that
clerk and confirmed the same. I also confirmed their was discussion about me on July 20,
2007 among court personnel in the Washington County Family Court before Mr. Sullivan ever
called on July 23, 2007. However, out of respect for the various good people in our legal
system I will leave the names undisclosed.
To those attorneys who have spread the false allegations started by Judge Laureen D'Ambra
in open court simply to make more money at my expense and the expense of those persons
who might otherwise have become my clients, thank you for the black eye you continue to
give our profession by your lack of integrity.
You draw your own opinions and conclusions.
Could it be that I was set up?
Could it be that Judge D'Ambra wanted to stop the Sullivan case from reaching an
appealable decision?
Is it possible that my reputation and practice were of little consequence to Judge D'Ambra's
ambitions?
Ultimately the result was what it was . . . the locomotive engine was taken out.
December 27, 2008 Update
So where am I today, after all of this. Nearly a year an a half later I continue to receive calls from
prospective clients who set up appointments and cancel them. Thankfully some of the ones who
cancel their appointments are willing to tell me that it is because of the rumors of drug use they
have heard from other attorneys. Several people have even been kind enough to give me the
names of the attorneys who made the statements.

I am thankful, however, that my knowledge of technology has pushed me into a a new generation
of law practice that now allows me to provide more affordable divorce and family law services by
the elimination of overhead working from a home-based office, something very new and innovative
in Rhode Island. This was a necessary step to preserve my ability to practice. I am thankful that I
have been able to turn around some of the damage that has been done. Were it not for today's
technological advances, my willingness to harness them to survive this occurrence and the
down-turned economy, you might find me bagging groceries at Stop & Shop today.

Yet sadly, I am faced with yet another dilema today. On or about December 4, 2008, I received a
letter from the General Counsel of the Rhode Island Supreme Court the letter reads as follows:

December 2, 2008
Via First Class Mail
Mr. Christopher Pearall
Attorney at Law
70 Dogwood Drive
Suite 304
West Warwick, RI 02893

Dear Attorney Pearsall:

It has come to the attention of this Office that a potential violation of Rule 8.2(a) of the
Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct may have occurred due to your posting of various
disparaging, misleading, and false statements regarding a member of the Rhode Island Judiciary on
your website: http://www.attorneypearsall.com/2008/09/judgelaureendam.html as well as on
http://www.links4women.com/articles/chris.htm . Specifically, these entries appear to describe
an incident that occurred in 2007 relating to your conduct as counsel before Associate Justice
Laureen D'Ambra and they contain unfounded allegations of incompetence and impropriety against
Justice D'Ambra as well as another judicial employee.

Rule 8.2(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct provides that

A lawyer shall not make a statement that a lawyer knows to be false or with reckless
disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge,
adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to
judicial or legal office.

While I fully recognize that members of the public are free to express their disagreement with
decisions made by the Court, attorneys also have a competing obligation to comply with the Rules
of Professional Conduct. Your recourse for any perceived unfair or inappropriate treatment by a
judges is through an appeal on the merits, or by filing a complaint with the Commission on Judicial
Tenure and Discipline.

Accordingly, we would ask that you refrain from posting these statements and/or revise the
content in accordance with Rule 8.2(a). Should the comments remain on your website after
December 31, 2008 this office may pursue an appropriate remedy through disciplinary counsel.

Sincerely,

Erika Leigh Kruse

General Counsel

The following is my response to General Counsel for the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

December 28, 2008

Erika Leigh Kruse, Esquire

General Counsel
Rhode Island Supreme Court
Frank Licht Judicial Complex
Providence, RI 02903

Dear Attorney Kruse:

Regarding your December 2nd letter, I do not own or control the content at
Links4Women.com, therefore I can do nothing about the content that appears there.

I have had no intention of violating Rule 8.2(a) of the Professional Rules of Ethical
Conduct, however I do believe I have the right to express myself within the bounds of the
Professional Rules of Ethical Conduct.

I will re-read the article at AttorneyPearsall.com and any other articles I may still have editorial
control in light of my 1 ½ year investigation.
 However, it would be very helpful if you (or the unknown complainant) would identify the
statements believed to be in violation of Rule 8.2(a). This will allow me to address any issues
quickly and with clarity.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

Christopher A. Pearsall
CAP/cp

Article Authored By:

Christopher A. Pearsall, Esquire

Attorney-at-Law
70 Dogwood Drive, Suite 304
West Warwick, RI 02893

Call (401) 632-6976 Now for your low-cost consultation.

from
Rhode Island's Most Affordable Divorce & Family Law* Attorney

Copyright 2008. Christopher A. Pearsall,

A New Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer for a New Millenium

*The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all attorneys in the general practice of law.

Pearsall.net | AttorneyPearsall.com | Rhode Island Divorce Tips | ChristopherPearsall.com |

GuaranteedWealth.com | Rhode Island Divorce Attorney | Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer |
Chris Pearsall