Lying Then Or Lying Now?

An attorney who was initially admitted to practice in 1968 and never been disciplined in the past was censured by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

He engaged in a conflict of interest in a foreclosure matter and exacerbated the ethical problem by obstructive behavior in the ensuing malpractice litigation

this record demonstrates respondent’s pattern of false statements and half-truths. On multiple occasions during discovery, including in his answer to an interrogatory and during his testimony respondent misled [counsel] Hoberman. at his deposition, under oath, He first indicated that the name of his carrier was “unknown” to him. Then he testified that the name of the carrier began with an “A” and that he “probably” had notified his carrier of the malpractice claim. As to the latter statement, respondent told the DEC that he had made a conscious decision not to give notice of the suit to his carrier, because he considered it to be frivolous and he did not want his insurance premiums to increase. Also, at his deposition, he testified that he had represented DeFilippi at the closing, only to tell the DEC that his testimony had been untrue and that it had been prompted by his irritation at Hoberman’s repeated  questions about that topic. This conflicting statement demonstrates that respondent either lied at the deposition or lied to the DEC.

On the plus side

A significant mitigating factor here is respondent’s spotless disciplinary record in New York, where he was admitted forty-six years ago, and in New Jersey, where he was admitted twenty-six years ago, strongly suggesting that his conduct in this matter was aberrational or out-of-character.

The orders are linked here. (Mike Frisch)