The New Jersey Supreme Court imposed a three-month suspension of an attorney admitted in 1966 for misconduct found by the Disciplinary Review Board

In sum, in DRB 19-223, respondent is guilty of having violated RPC 1.5(b) and RPC 5.5(a)(1). In DRB 19-273, respondent is guilty of having violated RPC 1.15(a) (commingling), RPC 1.15(d), and RPC 8.4(c). We determine, however, to dismiss the allegations that respondent further violated RPC 1.15(a) and (b). 

He had practiced while administratively suspended

Respondent was declared ineligible to practice law on November 17, 2014 for failure to comply with CLE requirements. In 2015, he reached the age of seventy-five, which relieved him of future CLE obligations, but he never came into CLE compliance after the 2014 ineligibility, and, thus, remained ineligible to practice thereafter.

More serious charges involved entrusted funds

respondent’s wholesale reliance on the representations of his client, Alphe, whereby he proceeded to disburse the majority of Brutofsky’s funds, was reckless. As counsel to Alphe and Trinity, prior to depositing Brutofsky’s funds in his ATA, respondent should have conducted diligence in respect of the joint venture arrangement between the parties and determined the parameters for the release of Brutofsky’s funds. Instead, respondent allowed his ATA to be used as Trinity’s business account, without guardrails or oversight. Although respondent’s use of his ATA was inadvisable, the facts of this case do not rise to the level of an ethics infraction in this regard.

Thus no automatic disbarment under the rule of  In re Wilson. 

There was commingling which the DRB concluded was a dishonest attempt to avoid creditors. 

The attorney was reprimanded in 2009

Specifically, he wrote a letter to his adversary in a domestic relations matter and accused the adversary’s client of being “an unmitigated liar.” Then, following a court hearing, he approached the adversary’s client and exclaimed that, because of her lies, he would “cut [her] up into bits and pieces, put [her in] a box and send [her] back to India and [her] parents won’t recognize [her].” Respondent also threatened to file ethics charges against the adversary solely to intimidate the adversary and the client.

Sanction

In respect of mitigation, respondent asserts that he has ceased the practice of law, with no plans to resume. He engaged in community service throughout his legal career. He also suffers from serious health issues, but conceded, during the ethics hearing underlying DRB 19-273, that his health did not affect his decision-making in respect of his admitted disciplinary transgressions in that matter.

On balance, the aggravation in this case outweighs the mitigation, in light of the diverse nature of respondent’s infractions and the absence of a direct link between respondent’s health issues and the most serious misconduct currently under scrutiny. Respondent’s commingling was purposefully designed to defeat his creditor, for his pecuniary advantage. His additional misconduct and prior discipline beckons enhancement of the censure imposed in Weber, A1-Misri, and Olitsky. Accordingly, we determine that a three month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar.

Member Zmirich voted to impose a six-month suspension. Member Petrou voted to impose a two-year suspension.

(Mike Frisch)