A Matter of Notice

The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted a recommendation of its Disciplinary Review Board to impose a retroactive three-month suspension for misconduct that, according to the Board majority, involved a “burgeoning pattern of defaults” in bar discipline matters.

A court order is required prior to reinstatement.

It is ORDERED that Wayne Antonio Autry is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, retroactive to March 1, 2017, and pending compliance with all outstanding requests from the Office of Attorney Ethics, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of taw pursuant to the Order of the Court filed March 10, 2016, and pending his payment of the administrative costs due to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee in DRB 14- 286, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys…

The Rule involves, among many provisions, filing an affidavit of compliance including notice of the suspension to clients, courts and others. and that the suspended attorney

shall within 30 days after the date of the order of suspension (regardless of the effective date thereof) file with the Director the original of a detailed affidavit specifying by correlatively numbered paragraphs how the disciplined attorney has complied with each of the provisions of this rule and the Supreme Court’s order.

The lonely voice of reason comes from the dissent of Member Gallipoli

I dissent from the majority and vote to recommend respondent’s disbarment. I do so not because of respondent’s disciplinary record, but because an attorney who fails to comply with an Order of the Court entered in attorney discipline or fee arbitration matters manifests a disdain for the disciplinary process and the responsibilities attendant to the privilege of being permitted to practice the profession of the law. If the Board were to recommend disbarment, respondent would be compelled to appear before the Court to explain why he or she has not complied with the Court’s Order requiring the the filing of the R. 1:20-20 affidavit. I believe that this should occur.

He concludes that such a result would protect the public and the attorney’s clients and underscore the importance of compliance with the court’s orders. (Mike Frisch)