Slew Draws Short Suspension

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ordered a three-month suspension as proposed by the Disciplinary Review Board

…for respondent’s most serious infractions – misrepresentations to clients (two separate clients, Kim/KOTRA and RAK Foods), fee overreaching, and conflict of interest, a reprimand is required.

However, respondent is guilty of a slew of other violations as well: a combination of entering into an improper business transaction with a client; commingling; charging an improper contingent fee; practicing law while ineligible; various recordkeeping deficiencies; and failure to cooperate with ethics authorities. Together, these additional violations warrant the imposition of at least a censure.

In additional aggravation, respondent’s use of Fredericks’ name on his attorney letterhead was particularly brazen, having taken place after Fredericks explicitly directed him not to do so. Moreover, this is not respondent’s first brush with the disciplinary system. He has a 1998 admonition for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

The parties cited no mitigation.

For respondent’s numerous violations in these several client matters, combined with the aggravating factors, the Board determined that a three-month suspension is warranted.

(Mike Frisch)