Temper, temper.

That’s what a Chicago lawyer should have remembered. Instead, he hit the trifecta of ill manners when it came to unseemly displays.

Now he’s facing his fourth trifecta — a three-month suspension from the practice of law as well as an order to attend classes on professional behavior. Those who watch too many courtroom TV dramas may not realize it, but lawyers are required by rule to maintain a professional facade as they go about their business.

Chicago lawyer Charles A. Cohn now is learning, to his chagrin, what happens they forget the rules of deportment. The state’s Attorney & Registration Disciplinary Commission recently dropped the hammer on Cohn. All he can do now is hope the Illinois Supreme Court will do what it rarely does: Reject an ARDC recommendation and modify Cohn’s punishment.

While those not involved in the matter might find the entire episode amusing, the participants did not.

Cohn first insulted a rival lawyer during a deposition with unchivalrous name-calling. When she objected, he replied, “I’ll say what I want.”

Called on the carpet by a judge for his displays, Cohn said what he wanted about Judge Franklin Valderrama. He accused the judge of “robe rage” and bias against his client. Finally, appearing in a disciplinary case before an ARDC panel, Cohn’s conduct was described as “unprofessional and hostile.”

Cohn’s “conduct. …leaves us concerned that he is not able to conduct himself in a professional and ethical manner when faced with stressful or adversarial circumstances,” a three-member ARDC panel wrote in its decision recommending the three-month suspension.

One might also say the same thing about Cohn’s judgment. Rather than hire a lawyer to handle his disciplinary case, Cohn chose to represent himself in the matter and called the ARDC counsel “a liar and made demeaning remarks to her” during the proceedings.

The litany of invective started in November 2016 at a deposition of a Cohn client, William Green, who was involved in a legal dispute with two insurance company lawyers.

Keely Hillison was one of the insurance company lawyers, and Cohn refused to let his client answer one of her questions.

The ARDC decision describes what happens next.

“When Hillison asked Green if he had been provided a vehicle to use in connection with his employment, (Cohn) objected. When Hillison responded by certifying the question, the following exchange occurred:

“Cohn: OK. Then certify your own stupidity at this point.”

During another exchange, Hillison asked Green a question and Cohn told his client not to answer.

“When Hillison asked that the question be certified, Respondent said: ‘Motion for sanctions; indicate that on the record. I’m going to get sanctions against your firm like you wouldn’t believe, (expletive deleted).’”

The ARDC defined the expletive in question as a “derogatory, insulting word for a nasty woman,” one that rhymes with witch.

Cohn later said he was protecting his client from Hillison’s antagonistic questions. But the ARDC found he was trying to disrupt the deposition and demean Hillison, and the judge presiding over the case chastised Cohn for “inappropriate” language and conduct.

That’s when Cohn went after the judge for allegedly displaying “robe rage” when he chastised Cohn.

He said the judge “flew into a rage at this counsel for what was said at the deposition.”

“It is always preferable if a judge is able to put out fires rather than pour oil on the flames,” Cohn said in assessing the judge’s demeanor.

The ARDC concluded Cohn’s description of the judge’s conduct was incorrect, finding Valderrama was “not in a rage or even visibly angry.”

After hearing the evidence in the case and observing Cohn in action, the ARDC panel members said they couldn’t help but see “consistencies between the conduct at issue.”

All told, Cohn’s intemperance convinced the ARDC that he improperly directed “vulgar and abusive” language at an opposing lawyer, causing her to feel demeaned and embarrassed. Regulators ruled that he also made false statements about the judge, hindering the administration of justice.

The minimal mitigation it found was that Cohn, a lawyer since 1983, has had no prior disciplinary issues and is a voluntary zoning plan commissioner in his hometown.

More ominously, it found Cohn unconcerned about his admitted conduct toward his opposing lawyer, calling it “no big deal.” He also stood by his characterization of the judge.

“… We are not left with confidence that (Cohn) will refrain from making similarly improper statements in the future,” the ARDC panel stated, observing that Cohn needs “to refrain from personal attacks and to maintain his professionalism at all times.”

Cohn, obviously, does not agree. Indeed, he probably has a few choice words for those who recommended his three-month suspension. Remember, this is a guy who says what he wants.