Complaint Review: Richard Fabricant - New York New York

       Richard Fabricant age 82, of the prestigious law firm Wohl Loewe Stettner Fabricant & Deitz, P.C., 8 E 40th Street, New York City, is a blatant perjurer as described in the following letter to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Court submitted a number of years ago. He should be ashamed of himself. He is the husband of famous New York Times writer Florence Fabricant who is 76 years old and looks it.

       "This letter constitutes a disciplinary complaint against Richard Fabricant of the prestigious law firm Wohl Loewe Stettner Fabricant & Deitzand Fabricant.

       In a matter titled Tastemaster v. Lynn Roberts and Peter Locker in United States Federal Court, Southern District of New York, several years ago Richard Fabricant committed perjury in his own affidavit in advancing his client case.

       This case involved the principal of his client, REDACTED, who sued his former mistress, Lynn Roberts and her then new boyfriend, Peter Locker, for allegedly stealing a gourmet event, The View From the Vineyard, that REDACTED ran for several years with the invaluable assistance of Ms. Roberts. Mr. Locker, a fellow gourmet and wine expert, had formerly been REDACTED's closest friend. Mr. Fabricant and his former wife are also close friends of REDACTED and his wife.

       In his affidavit submitted to the court, Mr. Fabricant stated that Ms. Roberts was merely an employee who helped out in a minor capacity and that she was barely known to REDACTED. This was blatantly untrue and known to be untrue inasmuch as Richard Fabricant frequently socialized with REDACTED and Ms. Roberts as well as REDACTED and his former wife and was aware of REDACTED's ten year relationship with Ms. Roberts as his mistress (which was also an open secret in gourmet circles). Upon information and belief, Mr. Fabricant and his wife also socialized with REDACTED in the company of both his former wife and Ms. Roberts (yes, this is the stuff movies and novels are made of!).

       Mr. Fabricant sought to deliberately deceive and mislead the court as to Ms. Roberts' participation as a vital and invaluable figure in the running of the gourmet event as well as her relationship with REDACTED. Furthermore, Mr. Fabricant encouraged the court to find Mr. Locker in contempt of court resulting in his incarceration when Mr. Locker gave as his address a cemetery in New Jersey owned by his family - an address officially used by Mr. Locker for more than twenty years and which mail, deliveries, etc., could be successfully made with no delay. Although Mr. Fabricant was aware of circumstances that forbade Mr. Locker from revealing where he "slept" the night before, he persisted in his quest to see Mr. Locker incarcerated. Mr. Fabricant sat mute when the judge accused Mr. Locker of delusions regarding affiliations with government agencies.

       It may be significant in this regard that the court apologized to Mr. Locker the following morning for having had him incarcerated and subsequently dismissed the action against him following a modest settlement payment.

       Mr. Fabricant's conduct is of such a wanton nature so as to manifest a blatant disregard for the welfare and health of his adversary. Had Mr. Fabricant been candid with the court, Mr. Locker would not have been incarcerated for contempt of court. As stated above, Mr. Fabricant demonstrated a wanton disregard for the truth of his affidavit when characterizing Ms. Roberts as a virtual stranger to REDACTED. His affidavit to that effect constituted deliberate, intentional and knowing perjury."

       From the above there can be no doubt that Richard Fabricant committed blatant perjury and that he has utter contempt for the truth in legal matters.Richard Fabriacnt is an utter disgrace to the legal profession for which he should hide his head in shame.