Albany

Scott Greenspan wants his life back.

The Manhattan attorney went to Syracuse last year to monitor a malpractice trial at the behest of an insurance company. Even though the litigator was not involved in the case, he ended up being skewered by Onondaga County-based state Supreme Court Justice Deborah Karalunas, who painted him in a Nov. 13, 2013 decision as "creepy."

The judge's view of Greenspan's behavior convinced her to order a new trial in the malpractice case after the verdict. A Syracuse jury had voted unanimously in favor of the Small Smiles dental chain, which until 2012 operated a Colonie office called Access Dentistry.

Karalunas, labeling Greenspan's behavior as juror intimidation, found that his "misconduct was prejudicial and likely to influence the verdict" following a 15-day court battle.

The judge made Greenspan's actions sound like the work of a dirty or dangerous lawyer. And the story of Greenspan's alleged actions became widely reported, including in the Times Union.

But what the judge wrote did not match what jurors later said under oath. In affidavits, none of them said Greenspan had any effect on their verdict.

And Greenspan, 43, was quickly exonerated of any wrongdoing by a panel that investigates complaints against attorneys.

Now, Greenspan is hoping publicity of his vindication will spread as widely as the stories about the judge's remarks.

Greenspan remains flabbergasted at a trip that cost him his job and reputation without giving him a chance to defend himself. Following the judge's scolding, he left his job of 10 years at Sedgwick LLP, an international law firm, where he was a senior partner and equity partner.

"My professional life was essentially destroyed," Greenspan told the Times Union. "She destroyed my career ... I was running cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars as lead counsel and lead trial counsel and this judge's decision cost me it all. I lost my clients. I lost my job."

Michael McGeehon, general counsel at Sedgwick, later told the New York Law Journal: "In my view and in Sedgwick's view, Scott did nothing wrong and nothing improper. He was in a difficult situation and left our firm voluntarily."

Greenspan said Karalunas interviewed a juror in secret without notifying the parties in the case — and issued an order forbidding the jurors from contacting the parties.

Karalunas, through a staffer, declined to comment Thursday.

Her 2013 decision described the sequence of events as follows:

Karalunas stated she spoke with the six-member jury immediately after the verdict on Oct. 9, 2013. Jurors wanted to know who the man was who was "stalking" them, which prompted the judge to question Greenspan the next day in open court.

"The jurors described for me their interactions with you, Mr. Greenspan," the judge told Greenspan, according to a transcript in the decision. "They used the word you were creepy, that you were very seedy, that you were in the elevator with them frequently, that you followed them to places where they had lunch ...."

The judge said in the elevator, a juror asked Greenspan who he was; he told them he wished he could speak to them but was not allowed to do so. Greenspan admitted being in the same eateries two or three times with the jury and being on the elevator where a juror asked if he was a reporter. He replied: "Sorry, but I can't answer your question. No one can talk to the jury."

On Oct. 16, 2013, the judge interviewed that juror on video under oath without either side of the case present. The juror told the judge of being "bothered" and "scared" by Greenspan, who was "always in the audience" and appeared to be working with the defense. The defense later called the judge's interview of the juror improper, but Karalunas defended it in her decision saying it "struck a balance between protecting the jurors and providing detailed information to the parties while also allowing the court to address the effect of Mr. Greenspan's admitted contact with the jury."

The judge ordered a new trial.

In December, Greenspan received a letter from the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in Manhattan, asking him to explain his conduct. On June 11, the committee sent Greenspan another letter informing him it would take no action and the case was closed. The committee highlighted Greenspan's testimony before it and the affidavits of all six jurors — none of whom accused Greenspan of wrongdoing.

That included the juror who had told the judge of being scared.

"I asked him if he was a reporter and he said he could not talk to us," the juror said in the affidavit. "Otherwise, Mr. Greenspan never attempted to communicate with me."

All the other jurors stated: "I was not fearful of or intimidated by Mr. Greenspan. To my knowledge, no other juror was fearful or intimidated by Mr. Greenspan. There was no mention of Mr. Greenspan at all during jury deliberations."

rgavin@timesunion.com • 518-434-2403 • @RobertGavinTU