Judge reprimands Alex Jones’ lawyer in Sandy Hook case

WATERBURY — A state Superior Court judge has reprimanded the attorney representing Alex Jones in a lawsuit filed against the extremist filed by the families of Sandy Hook victims.

Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis issued the reprimand on Friday to Jay M. Wolman, who represents Jones, saying he violated rules when interacting with a witness during a deposition last fall.

“The court is not confronted with an innocent mistake or an excusable misstep but rather intentional bad behavior which gives rise to ethical violations,” Bellis wrote in her ruling.

Wolman did not immediately return request for comment.

He did express some remorse in his previously filed affidavit, “indicating that his language might appear aggressive and apologizing for any discomfort or pressure” the witness might have felt, according to the judge’s decision.

Bellis called it a partial apology and said how he behaved during the deposition “exceeded the bonds of an acceptable attorney behavior.”

The reprimand stems from a deposition on Sept. 17 when Wolman asked a witness to search his email on his phone — saying it was the same as a searching documents brought to deposition — and the questioning and conduct around it.

A Dec. 15 hearing was held to determine if Wolman violated certain rules of professional conduct during that deposition.

Bellis said Wolman violated a rule by “improperly giving legal advice to an unrepresented represented, knowing that such person’s interest conflicted with that of his client.”

She said his conduct violated another rule when he continued to pressure the witness to search his phone and his comments and questions on the record from the deposition were evidence of “his efforts to coerce the deponent into believing that he was obligated to comply.”

She said in her reprimand that his repeated questions on whether the witness would “call a lawyer ‘right now’ ” in the middle of the deposition were “unacceptable and unfair” and he “barraged” the witness by asking if he was refusing to show his phone despite the witness saying he wanted to consult with an attorney and wait for the court.

The plaintiff’s attorney interjected a few times during the deposition saying the witness didn’t have an attorney present and he has no legal obligation to search his phone and that Wolman’s request to do so was “unethical,” according to the transcription of the deposition in the court documents.

“At one point the deponent indicated that the respondent’s questions were making him nervous and that he felt verbally assaulted,” according to the court document.

The plaintiff’s attorney also requested they get Bellis on the phone to weigh in on Wolman’s conduct and the request to search the phone.

“The court emphasized the extraordinary nature of the request, stating that it was unusual, not normal, and not appropriate for a witness to search his phone for documents during a deposition ‘unless (the witness decided on the spot that he wanted to search his phone,’” Bellis wrote in the ruling.

Bellis wrote in the ruling that it’s rare for depositions, which are used to find evidence and facts, to happen outside of the court room without the presence of a judge.