Public Defender Bait-And-Switch Draws Short Suspension

The New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed a three-month suspension of a former public defender who pled guilty to charges related to his official duties

From the report of the Disciplinary Review Board

Each of these charges related to respondent’s offer of “better representation” to indigent clients for cash payments of additional fees.

On September 12, 2016, respondent appeared before the Honorable Richard F. Wells, J.S.C., Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County. In return for the dismissal of the superseding indictment, he entered a guilty plea to the disorderly persons offense of obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function…

During respondent’s allocution, he admitted that, at the relevant time, he served as the Pennsauken Township Public Defender and obtained clients who were both “public defender clients” and private clients. He admitted knowing that it was responsibility, as the public defender, to ensure that individuals “understood their right to a public defender, and in lieu of that, obtaining private counsel.” He also admitted using another person, his co-defendant, to converse with “individuals and to obtain their representation.” Even though respondent knew it was his responsibility to explain to the clients their rights, he failed to do so in order to represent the individuals as clients.”

 The Office of Attorney Ethics proposed a range of sanctions from public censure to a three-month suspension

The OAE stressed that respondent’s conduct, which involved more than a single act, was “reprehensible and sustained” – a “continuing course of dishonesty,” and that he abused his status as a public officer. As to mitigation, the OAE noted respondent’s lack of a disciplinary record and his agreement to forfeit his employment with the Township of Pennsauken and any future employment with the State.

The DRB recommendation was not unanimous

Member Gallipoli voted to recommend disbarment, finding despicable, the preying on such vulnerable clients. Member Zmirich voted to impose a one-year suspension. Member Rivera voted to impose a six-month suspension.

In an unrelated matter, the court followed the DRB recommendation to reduce a reciprocal sanction from Pennsylvania from a year and a day to three months. 

In New Jersey, leniency rules the day. (Mike Frisch)