A New Jersey Censure

The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted the sanction of public censure as recommended by the Disciplinary Review Board.

The DRB noted that he had practiced law while administratively suspended and had violated an advertising rule

Respondent…used an improper designation for his law firm, “MMK Law Group Inc.” RPC 7.5(e) permits a lawyer to use additional identifying language, such as “& Associates” only when such language is accurate and descriptive of the firm. Here, respondent, a solo practitioner, violated RPC 7.5(e) by using the term “law group” in his firm’s name.

A demand audit revealed

respondent commingled personal investment funds in his [attorney trust account], in violation of RPC 1.15(a) and R. 1:21-6(a)(1), leading to his negligent misappropriation of entrusted funds. Specifically, respondent commingled his personal funds for an investment in “iChannel” with client trust funds in his ATA and failed to conduct three-way monthly reconciliations. As a result, respondent stipulated to multiple instances of negligent misappropriation.

…Significantly, the stipulation noted that “[t]he lack of accurate recordkeeping on respondent’s part, as well as statements from those clients whose funds were impacted that respondent was allowed to use their funds, resulted in the OAE’s conclusion [that] there was no knowing misappropriation.” The parties noted that, with the deposits of respondent’s own funds, totaling $397,500, in his ATA, he corrected the shortages that had resulted from his negligent misappropriation.

And

Finally, during the OAE’s investigation, respondent disclosed that he had received loans from two clients. One loan was for $35,000 to fund part of his iChannel investment, and the other loan was for $200,000, to purchase real estate. The loan of $35,000 for the iChannel investment resulted in a negative balance in respondent’s ATA. Respondent stipulated that he had created no documentation for the loans, written disclosure of the terms of the transactions, or signed informed consents, as RPC 1.8(a) requires. Respondent rectified the negative balances in his ATA resulting from the iChannel investment and repaid both loans.

DRB on sanction

the Board accorded significant weight to respondent’s lack of disciplinary history in over twenty years as a member of the bar, his entry into the stipulation of consent, and his diligent efforts to remediate his misconduct. Moreover, no client was financially harmed by respondent’s misconduct. The Board found no aggravating factors.

Accordingly, considering the totality of respondent’s misconduct balanced against the mitigating factors, the Board granted the motion for discipline by consent and determined that a censure was the quantum of discipline required to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.

I’d simply note that there are places where, given all the factors identified above, an attorney would face more than a censure. (Mike Frisch)