Is Jared Covit's Attorney Martin Shell in Trouble?

We just had two successful days of legal discovery (which the main takeaway is Jared Covit thinks I'm mean), and I'm just about heading to Italy for better part of a month, so I'm not going to harp on this one thing as we are crushing it from a business perspective. but here's the letter I submitted to the NY Bar concerning the actions of Martin Shell.

Charles Petersheim
2458 State Route 209
Wurtsboro, NY 12790
917-838-5342

4/20/2026

Attorney Grievance Committee
Third Judicial Department
286 Washington Avenue Extension, Suite 200
Albany, New York 12203

Re: Complaint Against Martin Shell, Esq.
The Shell Law Firm, PLLC

Dear Members of the Committee:

I write to file a complaint regarding the conduct of Martin Shell, Esq., counsel for the plaintiffs in an ongoing civil matter in which I am a defendant.

The conduct at issue occurred during a scheduled site inspection of the subject property located at 174 Rivka Road, Saugerties, New York. The inspection took place on March 30, 2026.

During the inspection, Mr. Shell engaged in behavior that I believe was unprofessional and inconsistent with the standards of conduct expected of attorneys in New York. Specifically:

• Mr. Shell raised his voice and addressed me in an aggressive and confrontational manner on multiple occasions.
• He attempted to direct and control my actions during the inspection, issuing instructions in a manner that was inappropriate for opposing counsel.
• His conduct disrupted the orderly process of the inspection and created a tense and adversarial environment beyond what is typical for such proceedings.
• Mr. Shell produced a camera and began recording in a manner that I experienced as aggressive and intrusive. This recording was not disclosed or agreed upon in advance and was conducted in close proximity in a way that appeared intended to provoke or intimidate rather than neutrally document the inspection.
• His aggressive actions only were tempered after several warnings from my counsel.

It’s also appears that Mr Shell and Mr Covit (the homeowner) set up a listening devices at the exterior of the home to eavesdrop on our privileged and private conversations.  Since I was using my phone to videotape the condition of the home, I captured Attorney Shell speaking into thin air ‘Jared, can you open the front door’? while Jared Covit is inside the home far from our location.  The door then opens.

The purpose of the site inspection was to facilitate discovery in a professional and cooperative manner. Instead, the conduct described above interfered with that objective.

Mr Shell may counter his performance was in appropriate response to me introducing him to my fellow inspectees as the 'lawyer who sued us for fraud' (cause of action dismissed), which was just stating the facts that he himself created.  I believe Mr. Shell’s behavior falls below the standards of civility and professionalism required of attorneys, including the obligation to refrain from conduct that is disruptive, harassing, or prejudicial to the administration of justice.

I respectfully request that the Committee review this matter and determine whether further inquiry or action is warranted, especially the potential eavesdropping of client-attorney conversations.

I am available to provide additional information, including a more detailed account of the incident, the identities of other individuals present, and any supporting documentation.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.  There were four witnesses to this, including another member of the bar.

Respectfully,

Charles Petersheim

‍

What Claude.ai says about the situation -

If this happened, it is a serious violation:

From a legal standpoint, attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect your private conversations during that inspection. If opposing counsel actively participated in or directed the recording of those conversations, that is potentially one of the most serious ethical violations an attorney can commit. It could constitute:

• Eavesdropping — a criminal offense under New York Penal Law §250.05, which makes it illegal to unlawfully engage in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation
• Violation of attorney-client privilege — intentionally intercepting privileged communications is sanctionable conduct
• Bar ethics violations — under New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4, attorneys are prohibited from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation
• Potential obstruction — depending on what they did with the information

‍

‍