The Most Forgiving Jurisdiction

In a reciprocal discipline matter based on a California disbarment, the New Jersey Supreme Court followed the recommendation of its Disciplinary Review Board and reduced the sanction to a three month suspension.

The court order listed the violations

based on discipline imposed in California that in New Jersey constitutes violations of RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3(lack of diligence) RPC 1.4(b)(failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to comply promptly with reasonable requests for information), RPC 1.15 (a) (negligent misappropriation of client funds and commingling of funds), RPC 1.15(b) failure to promptly notify a client or third person of receipt of funds and failure to promptly distribute funds that a client or third person is entitled to receive), RPC 1.15(c) (failure to segregate disputed funds), RPC 1.15(d) (failure to comply with recordkeeping rules), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation). 

It takes the DRB about 15 pages to describe the extent of the misconduct that the attorney had stipulated to in California.

The DRB’s reasoning

the baseline level of discipline for the totality of respondent’s violations is a censure. In aggravation, respondent’s misconduct is indicative of a pattern that implicated, at a minimum, eleven clients, over the course of five years, from 2004 to 2009. Further, while restitution to these clients, in most cases, was ordered by the California Supreme Court, it was often a reduced amount. In some cases there was no order of restitution. In all cases, however, the record does not reveal whether respondent has satisfied his restitution requirements. What is clear, however, is that respondent caused economic harm to his clients, and, in some cases, that harm was significant, resulting in payment of their own monies to collection agencies.

In further aggravation, respondent failed to report to the OAE his disbarment in California, until 2013, two years after the fact. Further, respondent failed to report a 1998 six-month suspension in California.

In mitigation, respondent asserted that his failure to report his disbarment in a timely manner resulted from his reliance on the advice of counsel. Respondent acknowledged, however, that he should have researched his reporting obligations himself. He also explained that, after his disbarment, he moved overseas and suffered mental health issues for which he sought professional help. His delay in reporting is balanced against the OAE’s delay in filing the instant motion. Respondent’s failure to report his 1998 suspension, however, is not explained. Nonetheless, also in mitigation, respondent admitted his wrongdoing and appears contrite.

After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, we determined to impose a three-month suspension, retroactive to November 13, 2013, the date respondent reported his disbarment to the OAE.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed reciprocal disbarment in 2014.

So far as I can tell, this is not an April Fools joke. (Mike Frisch)