New Jersey Censures Recidivist Shoplifter

The New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed a censure with conditions for a shoplifting conviction.

From the Disciplinary Review Board report

On April 8, 2019, respondent, through his counsel Peter N. Gilbreth, Esq., reported to the OAE that, in March 2019, he had been arrested in Hanover, New Jersey and charged with shoplifting. Specifically, on March 12, 2019, a Hanover ShopRite employee observed respondent conceal merchandise worth $47.13 in a reusable shopping bag; purchase biscuits costing forty cents; and leave the store. ShopRite surveillance footage further revealed that respondent had shoplifted on seven occasions in the prior twelve days, stealing merchandise worth a total of $470.23.

After he was granted “first offender” treatment

Subsequent to Judge O’Toole’s May 20, 2019 order granting respondent’s entry into the Program, however, Judge O’Toole learned that respondent previously had been charged with shoplifting and participated in the Program and, thus, was ineligible because he was not a first offender. The previous charge stemmed from a 2017 incident in a Morris Plains Stop and Shop, where respondent had shoplifted $259.56 in merchandise. As a result of his entry into the Program for that offense, the Morris Plains municipal court dismissed the shoplifting charges.

Therefore, on June 24, 2019 respondent appeared before Judge O’Toole, entered a guilty plea to disorderly persons shoplifting, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(b)(1), and admitted that he shoplifted merchandise worth $470.23 from ShopRite.

Sanction

The discipline for theft and shoplifting has ranged greatly, depending on the nature of the crime and the presence of mitigating or aggravating factors.

…In mitigation, besides the 2019 admonition, respondent has no other formal discipline in forty-eight years at the bar. In aggravation, respondent has a troubling history of shoplifting, and engaged in a pattern of theft, over the course of twelve days, in the present case.

In light of respondent’s willingness to address his shoplifting behavior via counseling and his almost unblemished forty-eight years as a member of the bar, we determine that a censure is the quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar. Additionally, we require respondent to attend psychological counseling and, within sixty days of the Court’s disciplinary Order in this matter, provide proof of fitness to practice law, as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the OAE. Further, respondent is to provide to the OAE quarterly reports documenting his continued psychological counseling, for a period of two years.

In an unrelated matter, the DRB recommended and the court imposed a censure of an attorney with prior discipline but a remarkable mitigating factor

In mitigation, respondent has been practicing law for sixty-three years; is a World War II veteran; and suffered a serious health condition a few days prior to the date of the continuation of the random audit. His health and personal issues may mitigate at least a portion of his misconduct regarding his failure to cooperate with the OAE audit.

(Mike Frisch)