Gallipoli

The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a two-year suspension proposed by a majority of the Disciplinary Review Board and ordered disbarment of an attorney who failed to comply with the affidavit requirements of two suspension orders.

From the DRB recommendation

In this instance, respondent failed to file the required affidavit following two Orders of suspension, one for three months and one for six months. Moreover, as previously stated, he has an extensive and egregious ethics history, comprising an admonition, two censures, a temporary suspension, and the three-month and six-month suspensions. His circumstances are similar to those of the attorneys in Brekus and Kozlowski, who also had extensive and egregious ethics histories, including past suspensions, and received two-year suspensions or greater. In further aggravation, many of respondent’s past infractions were repeated, and his blatant disregard of the Rules is evident as the case at issue is his seventh encounter with the disciplinary system since 2008. It is clear that respondent has failed to learn from past mistakes and that the need for progressive discipline, particularly in default cases, requires enhancement of the sanction to be imposed.

Accordingly, we determine to impose a two-year suspension on respondent. Members Joseph and Petrou voted to impose a one-year suspension. Vice-Chair Gallipoli voted to recommend respondent’s disbarment and filed a dissent.

From the dissent of Vice-Chair Maurice Gallipoli

Once again, I dissent from the majority and vote to recommend respondent’s disbarment, not because of respondent’s disciplinary record, but because an attorney who fails to comply with an Order of the Court to file the affidavit that R. 1:20-20 requires of all suspended attorneys, in my humble opinion, manifests a disdain for the disciplinary process and the responsibilities attendant to the privilege of being permitted to practice the profession of the law.

I am fully aware that the Court has rejected a recommendation by the Disciplinary Review Board to address the recurring failure of suspended respondents to comply with the requirements of R. 1:20-20. While I disagree with the Court’s rejection, I respect the Court’s decision and mean no disrespect by filing a dissent in this case and in similar cases in the future. Absent enactment of the Board’s recommendation or some other remedial rule change to address this problem, I will continue to vote for disbarment so as to compel respondents to appear before the Court to explain why they have not complied with the Court’s Order requiring the filing of the R. 1:20-20 affidavit.

By such a procedure, I believe that the public and respondent’s clients would be protected from the consequences of respondent’s suspension and all attorneys would quickly come to understand and appreciate the importance of compliance with the Court’s Orders and the grave potential consequences of non-compliance.

I have followed New Jersey bar discipline enough to know that Judge Gallipoli has been a strong (and sometimes lonely) voice against systemic leniency.

I’d call him a Legal Hero. (Mike Frisch)