“Particularly Cruel” Crime Leads To Disbarment

The New Jersey Supreme Court has disbarred a twice-convicted attorney.

From the Disciplinary Review Board on the attorney’s first plea

He admitted that, on or about January 6, 2010, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appeared at his house and asked whether he discussed holding a political fund-raiser with “a certain person.” Respondent admitted that he lied and told the FBI that he had not, when he had actually done so. Respondent’s conduct had come to light as a result of an investigation into a State Senator.

He got probation but

While on probation, respondent committed additional criminal offenses. On April 8, 2014, he waived prosecution by indictment and consented to proceeding by way of information. On that same date, before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, U.S.D.J., United States District Court, Southern District of New York, he entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

The crimes involved a “debt settlement” service

As the judge detailed during respondent’s sentencing, respondent preyed on individuals who already were struggling financially. The companies, which he managed, purportedly deposited their clients’ funds in escrow, under the guise of settling or lowering their debts. Instead, in many instances, the clients’ debts were not satisfied, leaving them in significantly worse financial positions than they were initially. All the while,  respondent and his family enjoyed the benefit of the pilfered funds by a lifestyle of excess and extravagance. In this context, we consider respondent’s conduct to be particularly cruel, visiting dire consequences upon his victims.

Sanction

Here, respondent’s conduct resulted in losses totaling more than two million dollars and affected more than 200 individuals. His conduct was callous and merciless. Thus, respondent’s character is as defective as Bultmeyer’s. Indeed, respondent’s conduct is even more egregious than Bultmeyer’s because he preyed on individuals who were already experiencing financial problems. Rather than improve their financial circumstances, he plunged them deeper into debt. Respondent’s motivation was sheer greed. Clearly, no period of suspension could restore the public’s trust in respondent. Thus, we recommend respondent’s disbarment.

(Mike Frisch)