Elderly Protection Only Prospective In New Jersey

Another reciprocal sanction reduction from the New Jersey Supreme Court involves an attorney who was disbarred in Pennsylvania and failed to report it to New Jersey authorities.

The sanction was reduced to a two-year suspension as recommended by the Disciplinary Review Board.

The misconduct involved selling unnecessary estate plans to the elderly, e.g.

One such client was Mary Lynch, who purchased a Bohmueller trust from EPA in 2001, when she was eighty-three-years-old. Lynch also purchased an annuity from Victoria Larson. The annuity would not begin to pay out until 2014, when Lynch would be ninety-six. Lynch was in the early stages of dementia in 2003. In 2004, when Lynch’s son prepared her taxes, he realized that her bank account, which previously had a balance of $60,000 to $70,000, had only $104. Lynch could not account to her son for the depleted balance.

The rationale?

The misconduct involved taking advantage of elderly , vulnerable clients but prior to 2014!

The [Pennsylvania Attorney Disciplinary Board]  unanimously recommended that respondent be disbarred. It found that, from 2000 to 2004, respondent’s practice was conducted in a “fraudulent manner designed to enrich himself at the expense of his clients, to whom he utterly failed to render the professional and ethical services they were entitled to receive.”

…The PADB found that respondent had not acknowledged or shown remorse for his wrongdoing. In light of respondent’s four year pattern of “misconduct inflicted upon the unsuspecting public, most of whom were elderly citizens” and his lack of remorse, it felt “compelled” to recommend disbarment. On January 23, 2015, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an order disbarring respondent.

But New Jersey leniency must be factored in

Since Moeller, the Court has signaled harsher discipline for attorneys who victimize the elderly. In re Torre, supra, 223 N.J. 538. The OAE correctly notes that Torre normally would inform us as to the appropriate quantum of discipline in case involving the victimization of the elderly population. Torre borrowed $89,250 from an elderly, unsophisticated client he had known for many years, repaid only a fraction of it during the client’s lifetime, and barely reimbursed her estate. Ibid. Citing the protection of the public as a laudable goal of the attorney disciplinary system, the Court suspended Torre for one year. Id. at 548-50. It warned, however, that “misconduct of this nature will result in serious consequences o~ forward.” Id~ at 546-47 (emphasis added).

Torre, however, was decided in 2014. Pennsylvania disbarred respondent in 2015 for misconduct that occurred between 2000 and 2004. The Court in Torre made it clear that misconduct such as that committed by respondent would receive enhanced discipline “going forward.” Therefore, the guidance offered by Torre is inapplicable to the instant matter based on that temporal discrepancy.

Yes, because lawyers need to be told that cheating the elderly is sanctionable. 

In aggravation, however, we considered the number of individuals impacted by respondent’s misconduct, the massive sums of money involved, and the fact that his scheme targeted the elderly, a particularly vulnerable segment of the population.

He had no prior New Jersey discipline.

I may need to stop reading these New Jersey bar cases. (Mike Frisch)