The New Jersey Supreme Court has accepted the recommendation of its Disciplinary Review Board and censured an attorney

On June 18, 2011, respondent was arrested in Holmdel, New Jersey for the possession of cocaine. Specifically, police were called to the Holmdel Motor Inn and encountered M.S., who informed them that she had smoked crack cocaine with her lawyer, respondent. Respondent denied that he had represented M.S. in any matter. According to M.S., respondent had provided her with the drug, which resulted in her having a seizure.

The police’s search of the hotel room that respondent and M.S. had occupied yielded a glass pipe with what appeared to be cocaine residue. Respondent was arrested for possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS).

While the possession charges were pending

Thereafter, on October 27, 2011, the Keansburg police stopped respondent for speeding, failing to stop at a red light, and failing to use a turn signal. Initially, respondent told the officer that he could not produce his driving credentials. After the officer informed him that his car would have to be impounded, respondent produced his driver’s license.

Respondent’s two passengers were known to the police to be drug users. They consented to a pat down, which failed to produce any contraband. Respondent denied having “anything that he was not supposed to” and consented to a search of his vehicle, which uncovered “a burned glass pipe of the kind used to smoke crack cocaine with some residue in the seat’s front pocket.” Respondent’s passengers denied ownership of the pipe.

After indictment

respondent was admitted into the pretrial intervention program for a twelve-month period, which he successfully completed, on July 8, 2013. Thus, the accusation and indictment were dismissed.

The DRB

following respondent’s arrest, he did not practice law from October 2011 to March 2013. In March 2013, he worked at his father’s law office for one and one-half years and then worked for the firm of-Mallon & Tranger. He was later appointed as an Assistant Public Defender in Point Pleasant, and, in January 2015, was hired by the Falcon Law Firm as director of litigation. There, he handled a number of cases, which he successfully resolved. Respondent contends that he has returned to his pre-addiction state, is a very competent trial attorney, and is a loving and supportive father. He is currently responsible for ninety-two cases and “his life is back on track.” 

The DRB felt that suspension was not necessary

In this case, respondent did not avail himself of the accelerated suspension mechanism because, at the time, he was dealing with his addiction. Because respondent has made great strides to achieve rehabilitation, has successfully and diligently returned to practice, and has moved on with his personal life, we find that the standard three-month suspension, at this juncture, would be demoralizing and could derail his rehabilitation efforts. Thus, given respondent’s rehabilitation and success in his law practice, we determined that a censure is the appropriate discipline.

(Mike Frisch)