Bar’s “Extraordinary Delay” In Pursuing Discipline Mitigates Sanction

The New Jersey Supreme Court noted “extraordinary delay” in the bar’s processing of a criminal conviction in ordering a one-year suspension of an attorney.

The Disciplinary Review Board had proposed a three-year suspension retroactive to 2012.

In our view, the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s misconduct is a three-year suspension. We must, however, determine whether the suspension should be retroactive or prospective. Respondent was sentenced in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Six years have elapsed since his first conviction, and almost five years have passed since he reported both convictions to the OAE. Typically, the delay in bringing this matter before us, which was no fault of respondent, could justify a retroactive suspension. Indeed, several of the cases cited above relied on this temporal component as justification for the retroactive application of the suspension imposed in those matters.

In addition, respondent voluntarily stopped practicing law in New Jersey from 2011 to 2013 by placing himself on “retired” status.

The conviction involved wire and bank fraud. The court agreed to back date the suspension. (Mike Frisch)