Inconvenient Facts

The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the disbarment of an attorney based on this harsh assessment of the Disciplinary Review Board

Here too, it was difficult to follow respondent’s timelines, logic, and defenses or excuses for the conduct he has committed. The special master did not hesitate to identify respondent’s brazen attitude in this regard, finding that respondent says whatever he thinks is necessary in the moment. Indeed, a review of the hearing transcripts demonstrates that, when respondent is confronted with inconvenient facts, he pivots and moves on to yet a new story.

Moreover, not only does respondent fail to take responsibility for his own actions, but also has the temerity to blame his clients and adversaries. The vitriol with which he spoke of Stobinski in the hearing is inexcusable and certainly inconsistent with behavior expected of an attorney. He then doubled down on that vitriol by repeating it in his summation brief. Only after having the benefit of reading the special master’s report disapproving of his vitriol did respondent submit a second brief, containing an apology. The apology, however, appeared merely for expediency, since, in his next writing (his brief to us), he turned the same vitriol on the special master and the OAE. In short, respondent appears to believe that only others are at fault for his misconduct.

Respondent also appears to have little interest in developing any of the basic, but necessary, skills to practice law. Indeed, he repeats the refrain that he is incapable of typing, using a computer, or sending e-mail. He has repeated this defense through several disciplinary matters. Here, he has added legal research to the list of tasks he cannot perform, and admits that he never has done research. In a notable exchange with the special master, respondent asserted that he does not need to use a computer or even conduct legal research because he wants to practice only in the municipal court system, as if that practice area required no knowledge or research skills.

Respondent has displayed a willingness for deceit, a penchant for obfuscation, an unwillingness to take responsibility for his misconduct or to learn from it, and a complete lack of self-awareness in respect of the basic competencies of practicing law. Four years after the issuance of the Order of temporary suspension, he has yet to attempt to comply with the OAE’s random audit. Respondent requests the privilege of winning his license back. He wants the opportunity to continue to practice law; yet, he has not taken the first and most simple step toward that end. He has done nothing but show disrespect and contempt for the disciplinary system as a whole. Thus, we recommend disbarment.

He is already suspended in a prior matter.

The misconduct here involved his practice while suspended. (Mike Frisch)