Another Day, Another Censure

You know you are dealing with a lenient bar discipline regime when an attorney can incompetently handle a client’s two matters, fail to return the file and entirely blow off the disciplinary process and not get suspended.

In other words New Jersey.

The Disciplinary Review Board reports

On balance, we determine that respondent’s misconduct in this matter demands a censure. For reasons unknown, respondent repeatedly failed to represent Gottlob with diligence. When Gottlob terminated the representation, respondent refused to comply with the requests that the case files be sent to his former client. Such misconduct, given respondent’s unblemished six years at the bar, would generally warrant a reprimand. Respondent, however, succeeded in exacerbating what otherwise might appear to be aberrational misconduct by completely ignoring the DEC’s repeated efforts to investigate these matters, thus, signaling an unfounded disdain for the attorney disciplinary system. He continued in his disdain by his failure to file an answer to the ethics complaint warranting enhancement of the otherwise appropriate discipline to a censure.

The Supreme Court agreed.

Same result here in another unrelated default per the DRB

Here, respondent’s case is not as egregious as the cases that resulted in suspensions. Only one matter was involved and respondent has no ethics history. Had he not defaulted, a reprimand would have been justified, as in the Elsas or Yetman matters. Respondent, however, consistently failed to cooperate, not only with his client and a beneficiary, but also with ethics authorities. He refused to reply to the grievance, despite the numerous opportunities he was given to do so, and permitted this matter to proceed as a default, warranting enhanced discipline.

And blessing  here. 

Make it a trifecta.

Sign off here. (Mike Frisch)