The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted the proposed six-month suspension of its Disciplinary Review Board.

The board described the matter

On August 30, 2010, at 8:48 p.m., respondent was arrested by the Bernards Township Police Department for possession of methamphetamine, a controlled dangerous substance (CDS). Upon searching respondent, the police found a glass pipe containing a white residue, which respondent admitted was “crystal meth.” After he provided written consent for the police to search his vehicle, the police found a plastic bag containing a suspicious substance, which respondent admitted was methamphetamine.

When he failed to complete the pretrial intervention program

On February 1, 2013, Judge Reed issued a warrant for respondent’s arrest. As of the date of the OAE’s certification of the record, that arrest warrant remained active.

He also violated obligations to report the criminal matter and cooperate in the bar investigations in New York and New Jersey.

The DRB notes on sanction

A three-month suspension is generally the measure of discipline for possession of a CDS…

Ordinarily, admonitions are imposed for failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, even if accompanied by other infractions, if the attorney does not have an ethics history.

The default makes it worse

Absent the additional misconduct and aggravating factors in this case, a three-month suspension would be a sufficient sanction for respondent’s CDS crime. Given his failure to
cooperate with the OAE, plus the noted aggravating factors, including the default status of this case, we determine to enhance the sanction to a six-month suspension.

When a member of the Bar is the subject of an active arrest warrant, it’s a problem. (Mike Frisch)