Disbarment Not Imposed

The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a proposed disbarment in favor of a three-year suspension retroactive to the attorney’s May 2018 interim suspension. 

The discipline was the result of a criminal conviction reported by NJ.com. 

A majority of the Disciplinary Review Board favored the harsher sanction

Respondent’s criminal scheme involved false statements used to defraud banks, his friends, and his family. Unlike the attorneys in Davis, Olewuenyi, and Serrano, respondent does not present mitigation that clearly outweighs the aggravating factors. He did not plead guilty, take responsibility for his actions, or assist the government in testifying against his co-conspirators. Instead, he did the opposite – he perjured himself, lacks remorse, and continues to refuse to take responsibility for his actions. His decision to proceed to trial, rather than plead guilty, is not an aggravating factor, but he is not entitled to the same mitigation applied to attorneys who have received lengthy suspensions instead of disbarment.

On balance, because substantial mitigation is not present in respondent’s case, and based on the Goldberg factors, respondent’s perjury, and refusal to accept responsibility, disbarment is the appropriate quantum of discipline to protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar.

The DRB dissent argued for the possibility of redemption

Simply put, although this is a close case, we believe that this respondent’s legal career is worth saving and that he should be given a second chance. We strongly disagree with the majority’s assertion that there is no substantial mitigation here. We find significant mitigation. And it is not mitigation created after respondent was caught, that is by cooperating with authorities to lessen his sentence or by suddenly doing good deeds pending sentencing; rather it is lifelong mitigation; it is the way respondent lived his entire life until he committed the crimes that led to his conviction and this disciplinary proceeding, an aberration in an otherwise admirable life story.

Letter after letter submitted to both the sentencing judge and to us tell the story of a young man brought up in a broken home in the Hoboken Housing Authority, with an alcoholic father who was no father at all, and a schizophrenic, abusive, drug-dependent mother, a young man who rose above it all to graduate from law school and then return to Hoboken in order to give something back to that community. He became a city council member and president and saw it as his duty to help those in need in his community.

…With so many letters, from so many people, telling a consistent story of good deeds, good will and a desire to help those in need, it is difficult to see respondent’s crime as anything other than an aberration that will never recur. His transgressions were serious which is why we support a three-year retroactive suspension as discipline. However, we do not believe disbarment is appropriate under these circumstances.

The court agreed. (Mike Frisch)