Something Short Of Disbarment

A three-year suspension has been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a matter described in the report of the Disciplinary Review Board.

The board majority had recommended disbarment and noted

Although respondent made numerous admissions in his answer to the complaint, and during the OAE’s investigation, at the ethics hearing he was, at times, evasive, unresponsive, inconsistent, and combative. He, nevertheless, admitted that he had engaged in gross neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate and had made misrepresentations to his clients, Erasmo and Annie Catanzaro. We find that respondent’s misrepresentations to his client were so pervasive and outrageous, and persisted for such an extended period that, coupled with his other infractions, disbarment is warranted.

By way of background, respondent graduated from Rutgers University in 1981 and Harvard Law School in 1984. Afterwards, he clerked for the Honorable William Wall. Over approximately the next eight years, he had four different employers: the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office; Stryker, Tams and Dill; Podvey Sachs and Meanor; and CIGNA Insurance Company. In 1993, respondent opened his own law practice. His wife joined him as a partner in 2003. Among other organizations, respondent served on the Board of Bar Examiners and several New Jersey State Bar committees.

 The board rejected mitigation based on a depression claim 

Significantly, despite the fact that respondent represented, without incident, several municipalities and Fortune 500 companies, his problems affected only two clients –Catanzaro and the grievant in his prior matter. Under these circumstances, we give this mitigating factor little weight.

Respondent’s evident belligerence at the ethics hearing, too, makes it difficult to conclude that he exhibited any contrition or remorse.

The board concluded that  “nothing short of disbarment is sufficient to protect the public.”

The court disagreed but, as per its custom, leaves its reasoning to the imagination stating that a three-year suspension is “the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct…” (Mike Frisch)