An Ill-Timed Flood

The New Jersey Supreme Court cut in half the two-year suspension proposed by its Disciplinary Review Board.

From the Disciplinary Review Board recommendation

the special master found that respondent handled and neglected the matter that Esa had entrusted to him in such a manner that the conduct constituted gross negligence, lack of diligence, and a failure to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter or to comply with her reasonable requests for information. The special master found that, by lying to Esa and to the OAE, respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. He also refused, or otherwise failed, to cooperate with the OAE…

Respondent also violated RPC 8.4(c) through his misrepresentations by silence when he failed to inform Esa that, not only had he received a dismissal notice for the complaint that had been filed on her behalf, but also that the case subsequently was dismissed. He made further misrepresentations to the OAE: he informed the OAE that he could not provide Esa with a docket number for the complaint because of a flood in his office. He went so far as to submit insurance claim documents related to the flood in his office to support these assertions. That flood, however, occurred a year-and-a-half prior to Esa beginning to inquire about a docket number and a year prior to the complaint being dismissed…

 As previously noted, however, there is further aggravation to consider. Respondent has lied to us, in writing, either by omission or commission. Specifically, although he denied his failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, the record clearly establishes otherwise. He also lied to us by denying that he received the original documents in this matter or that he was aware of the hearing before the special master. The special master’s painstaking efforts to involve respondent in the process clearly establish respondent’s misrepresentations to us in this regard.

Respondent’s disdain for the disciplinary system and his complete disregard for truth — not only toward his client, but also toward us, is alarming. Hence, on balance, considering all of the aggravating factors, we determine to impose a two-year suspension on respondent.

When the DRB is too tough for the Supreme Court, it’s likely a bad day for New Jersey bar discipline.

In other words, a day ending in “y.” (Mike Frisch)