How New Jersey Preserves Confidence In The Bar

The New Jersey Supreme Court has largely followed the recommendation of a majority of its Disciplinary Review Board and imposed a significantly reduced sanction as reciprocal discipline for an attorney who had consented to disbarment in the District of Columbia.

From the DRB report and recommendation

This matter was before us on a motion for reciprocal discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), pursuant to R. 1:20-14(a), following respondent’s October 26, 2017 disbarment by consent in the District of Columbia (D.C.). The OAE asserted that respondent is guilty of violating the New Jersey equivalents of RPC 8.1(a) (knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter) and RPC 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).

For the reasons set forth below, we determine to grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and impose a deferred, one-year suspension.

Connecticut has imposed disbarment as reciprocal discipline.

The District of Columbia charges involved three counts of false statements; two in admissions applications in Washington State and California and to D.C. Disciplinary Counsel.

On August 23, 2017, respondent filed an Affidavit of Consent to Disbarment with the D.C. Board, wherein he acknowledged that the facts upon which the D.C. disciplinary charges were predicated were true. On September 20, 2017, the D.C. Board issued a report recommending to the D.C. Court of Appeals that respondent be disbarred. On October 26, 2017, the D.C. Court of Appeals executed an order disbarring respondent.

Editor’s note: It takes 4 1/2 years to process reciprocal discipline?

A sad statement on reciprocal discipline for false statements to two courts and disciplinary counsel

Subsection (E) applies in this matter because the unethical conduct warrants substantially different discipline. Based on New Jersey disciplinary precedent, we determine to grant the OAE’s motion for reciprocal discipline and to impose a deferred, one-year suspension.

After reciting New Jersey’s history of lenient sanctions of false statements

Here, respondent’s misconduct is more severe than the conduct for which attorneys have received reprimands and censures. He falsely answered several questions on two bar applications and failed to disclose updated information as required by the bar authorities. He also made false statements to the D.C. disciplinary authorities. In that regard, as respondent’s misconduct concerns numerous false answers on two state bar examinations, concerning several reportable incidents, and his withholding of the information appears to be more intentional than mere oversight, a term of suspension is appropriate.

In aggravation, respondent has a prior censure. In mitigation, respondent cooperated with the OAE and signed a release and waiver of confidentiality concerning his D.C. disciplinary action, allowing the OAE to expedite this matter. Respondent has been retired from the practice of law in New Jersey since 2018, and his misconduct, though serious, has not caused harm to any clients.

On balance, we determine that a one-year suspension is sufficient discipline to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar. Considering respondent’s retired status, the term of suspension will be deferred and served when and if respondent seeks to resume the practice of law in New Jersey.

Four DRB members would impose disbarment. (Mike Frisch)