A Snapshot Of Bar Discipline In New Jersey

The web page of the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board posted five letter decisions that were each approved by the state Supreme Court on November 4.

In each of the cases, the Supreme Court approved the imposition of a non-suspensory sanction. There is one censure and four reprimands.

Reprimand was imposed for negligent misappropriation and failure to supervise a non-lawyer leading to a series of negligent misappropriations. 

The DRB

Generally, a reprimand is imposed for negligent misappropriation of client funds and recordkeeping deficiencies, even when found alongside commingling.

Wow.

Reprimand was also imposed for this misconduct

respondent’s former client, Shanti Sarup, filed a grievance against him, alleging that, more than ten years prior, respondent had given him poor legal advice in an immigration matter and, thus, exposed him to deportation from the United States. In response to the DEC’s investigation of the grievance, respondent fabricated a document and submitted it to disciplinary authorities.

In mitigation, the stipulation recited respondent’s lack of prior discipline, the more than ten-year passage of time since his representation of~ the grievant, and the fact that the fabricated letter was submitted only to the DEC. The stipulation described respondent’s deception as “an unfortunate reflexive response to the filed Grievance” and an “effort . . to mitigate what [respondent] may have perceived as a professional negligence issue.”

Submitting  false documents in a bar investigation?

Some places treat that as more than an “unfortunate reflexive response.” 

But the censure case takes the prize.

The attorney was “of counsel” to the Porter law firm and was retained by a bankruptcy trustee (Conway)  to handle two matters in New York state and federal courts.

He failed to properly handle the matters and to communicate with the client.

So far, so bad, but there is more.

Despite respondent’s appearance in the New York state and federal courts, he was not licensed to practice law in either jurisdiction. In so doing, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, a violation of RPC 5.5(a)(i).

Respondent also engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation. From the inception of the case, he misled everyone associated with it — Conway, Porter, the Pennsylvania bankruptcy court, the New York state court, and the SDNY that he was admitted to practice law in New York, a violation of RPC 8.4(c).

In June 2012, respondent misrepresented to Porter and Conway, by silence, that all was well in the case. That lie continued unabated until Conway learned on his own that respondent’s motion to vacate an earlier dismissal of the complaint had been denied because he was not licensed to practice law in New York. By his silence, respondent again violated RPC 8.4(c).

In addition, respondent made statements in documents filed with three courts containing materially false information about his status to practice law in New York. By misrepresenting himself to them, he lacked candor to those tribunals, in violation of RPC 3.3(a)(i) and (5).

Finally, in October 2012, respondent engaged in his most flagrant misconduct. After Porter terminated his “of counsel” position, respondent exacerbated his earlier lies, using outdated Porter law firm letterhead to send a letter to the SDNY judge seeking the dismissal of the federal complaint. By doing so, respondent again misled the SDNY that he was licensed to practice law in that court and that he was still affiliated with the Porter firm, violations of RPC 3.3(a)(i) and (5). Additionally, by using misleading letterhead, respondent made false or misleading communications about himself, violations of RPC 7.1(a)(1) and RPC 7.5(a).

There was some significant mitigation

In mitigation, this is respondent’s first brush with disciplinary authorities in an otherwise unblemished forty-year career. He also served in Vietnam as a military intelligence analyst, interpreter, and interrogator, and was awarded the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, the Bronze Star, and the Army Commendation medal. His history of community service includes service to the YMCA since 1985, his town’s recreation program, and the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation.

That notwithstanding, the Board concluded that the seriousness of respondent’s misconduct rendered his lack of prior discipline, military service, and service to his community insufficient to justify the imposition of discipline less than a censure.

That notwithstanding, New Jersey sure forgives lawyers for their transgressions. (Mike Frisch)