Adderall No Mitigation In Assault Case

 The New Jersey Supreme Court suspended an attorney for three months.

The Disciplinary Review Board noted that he had a 1999 reprimand

 the JAG found that, while in the Navy, respondent had made sexual advances to at least two women who were his legal aid clients, conduct comparable to RPC 8.4(d)

Here he was convicted of simple assault of a woman with whom he had an “on again/off again dating relationship.”

Respondent’s conviction is binding, cannot be collaterally attacked, and was well-supported by the photographs of M.C.’s injuries, the police officer’s testimony and report, and M.C.’s testimony. The transcript of the criminal proceedings revealed that respondent assaulted M.C. on more than one occasion. Yet, his influence over her was everpresent, as is evident by M.C.’s reluctance to testify against respondent in the criminal proceedings. Although M.C., the victim of the assault wrote an e-mail on his behalf, claiming that Adderall caused his irritability and manic behavior on the night of the incident, the record contained no facts to support that conclusion.

The Adderal explanation did not add up 

respondent’s submissions fall far short of the requisite standard — that the Adderall caused his violent actions, to a reasonable degree of medical probability — to establish either a defense or mitigation. Again, such proofs should have been submitted at the criminal hearing. Even at this time, respondent could file a petition for post-conviction relief to address this issue. He has not. In this context, we determined to accord no weight to respondent’s after-the-fact “explanation.”

The DRB evaluated the rather extensive law of lawyer assault in the Garden State and concludes that a three-month suspension was appropriate. 

Three members would double the sanction. (Mike Frisch)