Judge orders lawyer to face disciplinary hearing over Truck Beach controversy

A State Supreme Court judge presiding over the case of a contested oceanfront strip known as Truck Beach has ordered that a lawyer representing fishermen in a related case face potential disciplinary action for comments made to local newspapers.

In a ruling Thursday, Riverhead Judge Paul Baisley Jr. ordered that Southampton attorney Daniel Rodgers appear before the Grievance Committee of the Tenth Judicial District for “disciplinary consideration” for demonstrating a “continuing brazen pattern of misinforming and misleading his clients” on the status of the case. That case has resulted in criminal and civil contempt charges against the East Hampton Town officials and the East Hampton Trustees.

Baisley wrote that Rodgers has “demonstrated disrespect to the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division,” which have issued rulings that the town could no longer issue permits for driving on Truck Beach in Napeague after the Appellate Division affirmed the stretch is owned by homeowners, who had sued to establish their ownership.

Baisley, citing articles in weekly newspapers in which Rodger’s urged his fishermen clients to continue fishing on Truck Beach, said the attorney’s conduct was “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” The grievance committee can discipline Rodgers with a suspension of his law license or even disbar him.

Rodgers, whose clients are not a party to the Truck Beach civil action and is not an attorney in that case, has led an effort to establish that a “reservation” contained in the deed for the parcel has long allowed for fishing and “fishing-related activity,” including commercial fishing his clients and their forebears have conducted on the beach for centuries.

At one point, Rodgers proposed conducting a fishing clinic on the beach to establish the right. He said he recently installed a sign that reads "Beach is open" for "all fishing-related activities," beside one that mentions a "court order" in declaring "No vehicles beyond this point." 

Baisley cited Rodgers’ comments in weekly newspapers calling for an act of “civil disobedience” by fishermen to continue to drive on the beach to fish in defiance of his and the Appellate Division’s rulings. Rodgers has been seeking clarification of the fishing reservation, which resulted in his clients being cited in Town Justice Court. All those violations were thrown out after homeowners’ declined to formally press charges.

“After today, I’m encouraging you, go to the beach. You have a legal right to be there,” Rodgers is quoted as saying. “There’s nothing in the court ruling that says no trucks.”

Rodgers, in a statement Friday, said, “I stand by every word I have uttered in the half dozen newspaper articles cited by Judge Baisley.”

He added, “Judge Baisley is seeking to have me disciplined and potentially disbarred over a half dozen newspaper articles submitted by a group of wealthy oceanfront homeowners, despite the fact that no professional complaints have been lodged against me and I am not a party to this action.”

A person answering the phone at Baisley’s chambers said he retired Aug. 30.

Rodgers, who has represented 14 fishermen for free, said he believes Baisley has “misread” an appellate court decision that Rodgers said “clearly upheld the 1882 Reservation that gives the right of all citizens of East Hampton to traverse that beach for any fishing-related activity.”

In his ruling Thursday, Baisley also denied a request by the town trustees to clarify their position that they were not parties to the activities that led Baisley to issue civil and criminal contempt charges against the East Hampton town board, saying trustees’ request was "untimely."

And he denied a request by the homeowners to have trustees charged in connection with a civil contempt matter involving Rodgers’ actions, affirming that Rodgers was not an attorney for the trustees.

Stephen Angel, a lawyer for one group of homeowners, said he was “not unhappy” with Baisley’s ruling, which he said affirms that the trustees are stuck with the liability of certain plaintiff’s legal fees and other costs. “Even though we lost” in tying the trustees to Rodgers’ statements, “it’s hard to say it was a bad decision our way,” Angel said.

Daniel Spitzer, an attorney for the trustees, said, “We were very pleased the judge found no basis for the additional contempt motion against the trustees, and we look forward to resolving all the outstanding issues in the best interests of the community.”

The trustees have appealed Baisley’s contempt charges, and the matter is before the Appellate Division, he noted.

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.