No Guarantee

A reprimand by the New Jersey Supreme Court involves an attorney who mishandled a case and failed to advise the client of the resulting issues.

From the report of the Disciplinary Review Board

Respondent conceded that his behavior was inexcusable. He theorized that his conduct stemmed from a combination of ego and his belief that the plaintiffs’ claims should not have been allowed to go forward and cause great expense to his clients. He let this opinion cloud his judgment. Despite specific questions on the subject, respondent made clear that there was nothing in his personal life at the time that could have impacted his handling of the matter and nothing in particular done by his adversaries that contributed to his violations. Respondent had previously offered to the DEC investigator two explanations for his conduct. First, he claimed that, his head was “in the sand,” and second, he was “hoping that somehow, despite what had happened, the judge could still grant the motion for summary judgment.”

Respondent also indicated that, as a result of this incident, he is no longer pursuing a legal career, but may do so in the future. He acknowledged that any future practice would require less freedom and more supervision, so as to avoid making the same mistakes. He added that, although he believes that he would not commit similar violations, he could not guarantee he would not.

On sanction

In mitigation, respondent has had a lengthy legal career, having been a licensed attorney for thirty-four years with no known history of discipline in any state in which he has practiced, albeit having been admitted in New Jersey for only one year at the time of the misconduct.

He was admitted in the District of Columbia in 1981. (Mike Frisch)