Reprimand For False Discount Letter

A reprimand has been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court based on a conviction for filing a false instrument.

The Disciplinary Review Board reported

During his plea allocution before Judge Ross, respondent admitted that, on March 2, 2009, while First Deputy General Counsel for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (the Port Authority), he filed a letter containing false information with his supervisor, Darrell Buchbinder, who was General Counsel to the Port Authority. Specifically, the letter falsely represented that Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Weil), a law firm retained by the Port Authority in 2007, would be providing its services to the Port Authority at a fifteen percent discount. Respondent admitted to investigators for the New York District Attorney’s Office that he had fabricated the letter; that Weil had never agreed to discount its legal services to the Port Authority; and that he filed the letter with his supervisor to give the appearance that the Port Authority was receiving a discount that respondent knew it was not receiving.

The board observed that the conviction was conclusive proof in rejecting contrary claims but noted

the Inspector General’s claim that the Port Authority was unable to realize a nearly $7.5 million discount on Weil’s legal fees is contrary to the language in the very documents underlying the Port Authority’s retention of Weil. Those documents evidenced no such discount, unaddressed by the Inspector General a fact conspicuously in his letter to disciplinary authorities. Also left unaddressed was the language contained within the four corners of the retainer agreement between Weil and the Port Authority and within Buchbinder’s representations, contained in his confidential memorandum to the Executive Director, which were made two years before respondent fabricated the discount letter for the Port Authority’s files. The Inspector General’s letter was sent within days of respondent’s guilty plea, and prior to Buchbinder’s resignation from the Port Authority. Respondent suggests that Buchbinder was attempting to make respondent the scapegoat for Buchbinder’s own dishonest actions. Although Buchbinder’s motives may be questionable, prompting some sympathy toward respondent on our part, the fact remains that respondent engaged in dishonest, unethical conduct.

…we may consider “mitigating factors such as respondent’s reputation, his prior trustworthy conduct, and general good conduct.” Respondent has submitted numerous character letters that can be described as truly exceptional, and warrant the finding of compelling mitigation. In further mitigation, respondent entered a guilty plea acknowledging his criminal conduct, which occurred over seven years ago. Moreover, respondent has no disciplinary history after over 30 years at the bar.

The DRB discusses the applicable sanction precedents at length. (Mike Frisch)