“Making A Mockery Of The Ethics Process” Draws Reprimand
The New Jersey Supreme Court followed the proposed sanction of its Disciplinary Review Board which reprimanded an attorney for misconduct in a single cient matter.
He had failed to comply with the conditions of a 2013 agreement in lieu of discipline (“ALD”).
The explanations were worse than the offenses as reflected in these excerpts.
Respondent explained that he failed to comply with the ALD because he was embarrassed; he, thus, took the “Ostrich Approach,” and hid his head in the sand…
At the DEC hearing, respondent thanked the panel for the opportunity to be present and “you know, just win friends and influence people. One day I’ll be on top of that panel.” He later reiterated that if the ethics matter “goes nowhere, in about ten years, I will be on a panel similar to this.” Respondent asserted that, regardless of the panel’s ultimate decision, he had already changed his business practice. He was a “different attorney” from the one he was before. He was thought of “more of a business-minded attorney,” and his clients were “much happier.” He has changed his business practices, “which teaches me to think more like a business professional and have a successful family life . . . I’ve rehabbed myself…
Respondent blamed his mentor for his troubles. He found the mentor on Craig’s List “as many attorneys do who look to establish their own office.”
As to the changes to his law practice, respondent remarked that new attorneys do not have funds for hiring staff. Thus, he starting reading books, one of which changed his life, Four Hour Work Week, which deals with outsourcing work. According to respondent, none of his paralegals are even in the State of New Jersey. “They’re spread out through the United States and I’m even exploring paralegals in India who can do legal work for me for pennies on the dollar.” Respondent named several websites that could be used to post ads to hire paralegals for project based jobs to avoid paying someone a salary or benefits to sit in the office. He stated that the concept “works great” for him.
Respondent maintained that he tried to hire the best and smartest paralegals “who are ten times smarter than me who never got a chance to go to law school for whatever reason,” and employs a paralegal who is licensed in another state but does not have a New Jersey license. According to respondent, she is 100 times smarter than him. He reviews her work and focuses “on going to conferences, building relationships and playing golf, because that brings in the business and I can have my paralegals do the work while I supervise them.” His paralegals, however, do not dispense legal advice. This is like senior partner thinking because “they’re out playing golf and building relationship[s], which ultimately brings in the business.”
The DRB on sanction
respondent showed no remorse or contrition for his conduct, but instead proffered flimsy excuses for his shortcomings and was sorry only that this matter did not “fall through the cracks,” thus, making a mockery of the ethics process. Moreover, respondent’s justification for his failure to comply with the ALD lacked sincerity. In addition to these aggravating factors, the more disturbing aspects of this case are that (I) respondent did not appear to understand the impact of his misconduct or that he in fact engaged in misconduct; (2) he did not. understand the significance of the disciplinary process, as evidenced by the fact that he suggested that, as part of his discipline, he mentor others; (3) he did not seem to understand the function of a mentor, as it does not entail merely sharing office space with another attorney found on Craig’s List; and (4) he outsources his work to paralegals outside of New Jersey and tries to minimize his contact with clients to maximize rainmaking and spending time with his family.
Based on precedent, because this is respondent’s first disciplinary matter, involving only one client matter, and because respondent had been admitted for only three-to-four years at the time of his misconduct and, therefore, was inexperienced, we determine to impose a reprimand.
The reprimand carries a number of conditions. (Mike Frisch )