IOHO, apparently attorney Grunin has a problem similar to that of other attorneys, in that they have a problem reading, comprehending what they have read, or making misleading statements. Mr. Grunin apparently only read the first clause on the State of New Jersey web-page, and ignored the rest of the paragraph.

Courts have ruled that fraud as it applies to attorneys is any attempt to deceive, whether by commission, by omission, by silence, by gesture, or by innuendo. As an attorney, Grunin should know the definition of fraud by an attorney. Has Grunin acted fraudulently in any of his communications either with a respondent, with a complainant, with a client, or in court? We understand that he may not have been forthcoming in all of his communications, and in fact in our opinion has engaged in misleading in some of his communications. As only one example, his letter to CLR dated January 16, 2002.

At no time did we state that attorney Jay A. Grunin was disciplined by a state disciplinary agency. However, at least one member of the public has charged him with misconduct, and there are members of the public who believe that he has brought disrepute to the legal establishment. The letter from the Office of Attorney Ethics of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, dated December 20, 2001, that he included as an attachment with his January 16, 2002 letter, confirms that he had, at one time, been charged by at least one member of the public with misconduct.

Mr. Grunin, isn't it unethical for an officer of the court to threaten any person in any communication, whether written or oral? Is not your threatening email to us engaging in an act of misconduct? Have you now not brought disrepute to the legal establishment?

Isn't it unethical to attempt to interfere with anyone's Constitutional Rights?

Please provide us with a full and complete copy of the entire file in your case before the Office of Attorney Ethics of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Please also provide us with a full and complete list of the names, last known addresses and phone numbers of all of your clients, both past and present. As you know, lists of clients have been held by the courts to be business records, and therefore are not within the client-attorney privilege exemption from disclosure.

Please provide the above along with your affidavit that your submissions are accurate, full and complete.  Upon receipt of the above, our Review Board will review your documentations and investigate your allegations to determine whether or not you have brought disrepute to the legal business.  If our Review Board finds that you have not brought disrepute to the legal
business, then your name will be removed from our web-site.

We understand that in most states, the misconduct of one attorney is considered the misconduct of all attorneys in the firm. Why should we not post attorney Linda Kalmanowitz's name on our web-site?

Mr. Grunin, do you honestly believe that a jury, after reviewing all of the evidence, will find that in the opinion of the public, you have not brought disrepute to the legal establishment?

     email: clr@clr.org

Created January 22, 2002