A veteran attorney claims he was targeted by state judicial authorities through discriminatory actions and retaliatory measures that resulted in the loss of his home, law practice, income, and reputation. According to a verified complaint filed on March 4, 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Eldridge Hawkins, Esquire, the defendants include members of the New Jersey Supreme Court, several judges, the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), Carmen Diaz as President of the Essex County Bar Association, and others.
The complaint outlines that Hawkins is an 85-year-old attorney with partial physical disability who previously served as a legislator and authored New Jersey’s Criminal Code. He alleges that over two decades he has faced hostility from Essex County judges due to his advocacy for civil rights laws and exposure of systemic failures within New Jersey’s judiciary.
Hawkins reports that his concerns escalated during litigation involving his condominium property. He states that after filing an ethics complaint against Judge Sules—citing delayed rulings prejudicial to clients—and requesting recusal in November 2024, Judge Sules was nonetheless assigned to preside over his case at a critical stage two years into litigation. Hawkins claims this assignment was not random but retaliatory: “The assignment was not random, routine, or neutral. It was: Retaliatory… Targeted… Outcome-determinative.” Judge Sules subsequently granted summary judgment against Hawkins in May 2025, resulting in Hawkins losing his home of fifteen years.
The lawsuit further alleges retaliation for protected speech under the First Amendment. On August 17, 2025, Hawkins wrote a letter to multiple judges detailing alleged judicial misconduct and systemic discrimination. Within three weeks of sending this letter—which he describes as addressing matters of public concern—the OAE issued a letter questioning his capacity to practice law based on his expressed belief that judges were conspiring against him.
In October 2025, Carmen Diaz signed a petition stating Hawkins suffered from health problems impairing his ability to practice law—a claim Hawkins asserts is false because Diaz had never met or examined him nor reviewed any medical records. The petition led to Judge Shiela Venable signing an order appointing a trustee over Hawkins’ law firm without notice or hearing. As described in the complaint: “The appointment of a Trustee constituted a seizure of Plaintiff’s property and professional livelihood without due process.”
Hawkins contends these actions were motivated by discriminatory animus related to age and disability. He states he suffers from neuropathy but maintains full cognitive ability: “Defendants treated Plaintiff’s disability as an illness and used it as a pretext to remove him from practice.” Despite no medical evidence suggesting incapacity, he says he was compelled under threat of suspension to undergo psychiatric examination and turn over medical records.
Additionally named as co-counsel is Cecile D. Portilla who attests she had an agreement with Hawkins regarding shared cases; she also claims she was accused of mental illness shortly after filing motions about perceived cyber interference with court documents—a move both attorneys describe as further retaliation for protected activity.
The legal arguments presented span federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C §§1981-1988 (including due process violations), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), as well as state-law claims such as defamation, fraud on the court, tortious interference with contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision by professional organizations like the Essex County Bar Association (ECBA), breach of fiduciary duty by ECBA officers including Diaz individually and officially.
Hawkins seeks extensive remedies including compensatory damages for financial losses past and future under ADA/ADEA/NJLAD; punitive damages; declaratory relief; compensation for emotional distress; injunctive relief prohibiting further retaliatory actions; structural reforms to judicial assignment procedures; proper investigation into alleged conduct; per se damages for defamation; all remedies available under relevant federal statutes; breach-of-contract damages; plus any other relief permitted by law. The total claim is stated at $2 billion for himself, Portilla, and similarly situated individuals whose law licenses were affected by involuntary incapacity declarations over the past decade.
Attorneys listed on behalf of plaintiff are Eldridge T. Hawkins (Eldridge Hawkins LLC) and Cecile D. Portilla (Cecile D. Portilla Attorney at Law LLC). The case is identified as Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-02303.
Source: 226cv02303_Hawkins_v_Rabner_Complaint_District_New_Jersey.pdf
