Bad Lawyer Heaven

There are places where a stipulation like the one set forth below will get a lawyer in serious trouble

The parties stipulated that, based on the aforementioned facts, respondent violated RPC 1.15(a) by negligently misappropriating client funds and by commingling personal and client funds in his attorney trust account. Further, respondent violated RPC 1.15(d) by failing to comply with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in Rule 1:21-6. He also violated RPC 8. l(b), by failing to cooperate in the production of financial records required by R. 1:21-6(h) and (i). Finally, respondent violated RPC 8.4(c), when he misrepresented to the OAE that he had corrected the deficiencies identified during the February 2016 random audit.

New Jersey is not one of those places.

The Disciplinary Review Board proposed and the Supreme Court imposed a reprimand.

The mitigation

respondent has been a member of the bar for forty-one years with no history of discipline. Additionally, respondent has admitted his wrongdoing and entered into a disciplinary stipulation, thereby saving valuable resources. At oral argument before us on October 18, 2018, respondent offered yet more mitigation relating to serious medical issues. Between 2014 and 2016, he suffered two strokes that impacted his ability to practice. He stressed that he offered this mitigation by way of explanation rather than excuse, confirmed that he takes responsibility for his violations, and agreed that a reprimand is the appropriate quantum of discipline.

Even the relative hardliners on the DRB have surrendered

Members Gallipoli, Rivera, and Zmirich voted to impose a censure.

(Mike Frisch)