New Jersey Rejects Trump Mitigation Argument

An attorney’s disbarment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York led to reciprocal disbarment in New Jersey.

The attorney settled an employment discrimination case for her client and received an $85,000 settlement check. She deposited the check in an account with a balance of 60 cents.

The attorney then spent the account back down to 60 cents before going into negative balance. The client got not a penny.

She contended that the client’s share of $55,000 was not at risk

Rather, she maintained that she had “set aside for Ms. Edkins a portion of [respondent’s] collection of gold and silver coins which she stores in a coin box at a relative’s home in Pennsylvania,” and that the portion was worth $55,500 – the amount of Edkins’ portion of the settlement proceeds. Respondent provided no evidence of either the existence or the value of the coins.

This type of client protection is not contemplated by the rule prohibiting misappropriation.

According to the Disciplinary Review Board’s report, she offered this thought in mitigation of sanction

other New Jersey attorneys and judges had been given second chances, despite egregious misconduct; and that “Donald Trump was permitted to run for office in spite of his being investigated for treason [and] several claims of sexual misconduct.”

 Nor was this helpful

Respondent also noted that she had settled cases for more money than she had received in behalf of Edkins, and did not steal those funds. Notably, respondent did not argue that she was authorized to use Edkins’ funds, and, further, admitted that she had undertaken no efforts to pay Edkins the $55,500 owed to her. Alarmingly, during oral argument, respondent admitted that she was unaware of the Wilson rule, and had not reviewed the case, despite having received the OAE’s motion and brief in support of discipline.

The Wilson rule mandates disbarment for intentional misappropriation. (Mike Frisch)