| ► Judge Louis Ohlig of New York – greedy, glorified, pimp, ethical gnome |
 |
 |
|
Judge Louis Ohlig of New York – greedy, glorified pimp, ethical gnome  
The New York Appellate Court made an egregious error when it gifted Louis Ohlig with a law license in 1962. In 1962, Louis Ohlig was successful in duping the voters in Suffolk County, New York into electing him a District Court Judge.
During his undistinguished disservice on the bench, the Judicial Commission found Judge Louis Ohlig guilty of a variety of misconduct. The majority of Louis’ egregious misconduct revolved around him acting as a glorified and compliant pimp for attorney Barbara Ohlig (that’d be Louis’ wife).
The facts regarding Louis the Pimps conduct is as follows:
Subsequently, a wrongful death claim was filed and after protracted proceedings and a trial, New York State made a payment of $9 million to the family to settle the lawsuit. Since this was a contingent fee case, the attorney collected just over $3 million.
When Barbara and her designed Pimp Louis learned of this settlement, they repeatedly confronted the attorney in person demanding that he pay Barbara 1/3rd of the $3 million he received in fees. Put simply, Louis the Pimp and Barbara were demanding $1 million in fees even though they absolutely knew that she never “performed any legal services” on behalf of the family members.
Apparently, the Pimp made a legal determination that Barbara’s appearance at a meeting that lasted about 30 minutes justified an attorney fee of $1 million. Unfortunately, for the Pimp and Barbara, the family members adamantly refused to execute any agreement wherein Barbara would be entitled to 1/3rd of the $3 million in fees.
The Pimp’s conduct in attempting to coerce the attorney to give Barbara $1 million in unearned fees was to put it kindly nothing more than attempted extortion. Louis engaged in this egregious misconduct while sitting on the bench.
In their ruling, the enablers on the Judicial Commission stated in part: “Respondent’s [Ohlig’s] actions were inherently coercive and showed insensitivity to the special ethical obligations of judges.”
The enablers then punished this certified loser by gifting him with a complimentary admonition.
|
and agreed to represent the family