Frivolous Litigation Draws Reciprocal Suspension

A reciprocal suspension of one year had been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

As described by the Disciplinary Review Board, one charge involved frivolous litigation brought in New Jersey Superior Court

Respondent admitted that the complaint failed to set forth viable claims against defendant Daymond John. Further, respondent was aware that the complaint against John was frivolous, contained no basis in law and fact, and that he had no substantial purpose to file the complaint against John other than to embarrass, delay, or burden him.

In that case

By order dated April 13, 2018, Judge Siracusa granted [defendant’s counsel] Harvey’s motion; found respondent in violation of the frivolous litigation statute; determined to sanction respondent; ordered respondent to pay Harvey $3,500 to cover a portion of attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a result of the frivolous litigation; and explained that the court had imposed the sanction to “deter repetition of [respondent’s] conduct.”

Respondent (as of the DRB report ) had not complied with the order or responded to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiries.

There were also findings of misconduct with respect to the handling of estate entrusted funds in an unrelated matter.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ordered a year and a day suspension.

The DRB proposed a day less

On balance, we determine to impose a one-year suspension. We deny respondent’s request that the suspension be retroactive. His claimed voluntary withdrawal from the practice of law in Pennsylvania and New Jersey does not provide a basis to impose his suspension retroactively, and to do so would amount to no meaningful sanction on respondent, in New Jersey, for his misconduct.

But with questions of the estate matter yet unresolved

Additionally, as requested by the OAE, we must address respondent’s failure to provide enumerated financial records regarding his PNC ATA. Specifically, we impose a condition on respondent that, as a condition precedent to any reinstatement petition, he first provide to the OAE any documentation and/or financial records that he provided to Pennsylvania’s ODC, and any further documentation the OAE directs him to produce. The OAE requires respondent’s full cooperation to determine whether the misappropriation of entrusted funds occurred.

(Mike Frisch)