As Pennsylvania Goes So Goes New Jersey

Reciprocal disbarment has been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court of an attorney suspended for five years in Pennsylvania,

As the Disciplinary Review Board explained

In his brief to us, respondent disclaims all responsibility for the improper handling of client funds and attributes blame to his full-time bookkeeper. Respondent, however, failed to provide any specific instances of how the bookkeeper was involved in his misappropriation of client funds. In fact, this version is completely contrary to the explanation that he had previously provided in his written responses to the ODC and in his answer to the petition. Further, as detailed above, many of the checks were written by respondent himself and were made payable to him. He also altered documents that he submitted to Client Security to “cover up” his unauthorized use of client funds…

respondent was guilty of the unauthorized practice of law by virtue of his continued practice during a period of ineligibility; of making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, based on his alteration documents submitted to the ODC; and of knowing misappropriation, based on his unauthorized use of client funds in, at a minimum, the Haig and Epstein matters..

In reciprocal discipline matters, there are two general principles to keep in mind. First, there is a presumption in favor of functionally-equivalent discipline. Second, the sanctioned attorney cannot relitigate adverse findings.

While every general principle has exceptions, I’d estimate that the above two apply to 95% or more of reciprocal discipline matters from state-to-state. (Mike Frisch)