Looks like Aretakis has some of the evidence he needs to defend himself from Urban's complaint about the statements Aretakis made; he's got his witness, Grimm.
It will be interesting to see if the court says he needs the personnel file to defend himself against Urban's complaint.
From the New York Lawyer (http://www.nylawyer.com/news/04/09/093004a.html):
NY Lawyer Fights Disciplinary Probe
September 30, 2004
By John Caher
New York Law Journal
ALBANY — An ethics complaint against attorney John A. Aretakis is raising questions about a disciplinary body's ability to litigate what amounts to a slander allegation, and the right of an attorney to publicly disseminate a misconduct complaint.
Mr. Aretakis, a Manhattan and Albany area plaintiff's attorney specializing in clergy abuse cases, this week challenged the Third Department's Committee on Professional Standards.
He contends the disciplinary agency has neither the jurisdiction nor the capacity to determine the validity of what at its core is a defamation action. And he also claims, contrary to the committee's position, that he has a right to make such a complaint public.
The dispute stems from comments made by Mr. Aretakis at a May meeting of the Coalition of Concerned Catholics of the Albany Diocese, a conservative group that has been critical of the diocesan leadership.
At that meeting, Mr. Aretakis accused the Reverend Carl A. Urban of numerous sexual improprieties and implicated the diocese and its bishop in a cover-up. Mr. Aretakis does not deny making those accusations and has publicly repeated them on several occasions.
Reverend Urban contends the allegations are "absolutely false" and defamatory. However, instead of commencing a slander action — which Mr. Aretakis dared him to do at the meeting — the priest took his complaint to the Third Department's Committee on Professional Standards.
"My purpose is to ask this Committee to investigate the conduct of this man and to protect innocent persons, like myself, from his public pronouncements of vindictive hate and salacious lies," Reverend Urban said in a complaint that was made public by Mr. Aretakis.
Often, observers said, an ethics complaint predicated on an underlying tort is left to the Civil Court since a disciplinary panel could then rely on the court action to prosecute a misconduct charge.
In the case of Mr. Aretakis, the Third Department panel has apparently decided to proceed in the absence of a civil action. That means the committee may have to prosecute a defamation case, acting in essence as counsel for the complainant.
In his Sept. 27 response to the ethics complaint, Mr. Aretakis observes that truth is an absolute defense and notes that the committee cannot find him guilty of misconduct without first finding that he slandered the priest. That, he said, it is neither authorized nor equipped to do.