Sixteen Years After: Violations Merit No Discipline

The New Jersey Supreme Court has concluded that an attorney’s ethics violations for a conflict of interest and false statement to a tribunal merit no discipline due to “substantial mitigating factors.”

The Disciplinary Review Board had proposed a reprimand for taking a second mortgage on a client’s property and leaving the mortgage off the client’s bankruptcy petition, which she testified was an oversight

 respondent acknowledged that, at the time of the representation, she was a seasoned attorney whose “forte” was bankruptcy law. She further testified that she knew she was a secured creditor when she filed the bankruptcy petition, a scant two days after obtaining a mortgage from her client, but claimed that she did not think of herself that day, because she “didn’t have to get paid” in the Chapter 13 plan.

But

Respondent admitted in her answer that she failed to disclose to the Chapter 13 trustee, the bankruptcy court, and the other creditors her secured creditor status, the existence of the Mortgage, and the liens on the Baron and Wedgewood properties. Based on the circumstantial evidence and the timing of events, the panel rejected respondent’s assertion that she had inadvertently omitted the Mortgage and her status as a creditor from Makris’s bankruptcy filing and, thus, correctly concluded that her omission constituted a misrepresentation, in violation of RPC 8.4(c).

Mitigation

The panel considered, in mitigation, the lack of injury to the client or prejudice to the administration of justice; the absence of personal gain as respondent’s motive for her misconduct; the passage of sixteen years since the violation occurred; respondent’s lack of prior discipline; and the isolated nature of the incident.

(Mike Frisch)