Volume Discount

The New Jersey Supreme Court has accepted a recommendation that no additional discipline be imposed on an already-suspended attorney because the misconduct was similar in nature and in the same time frame as the previously-adjudicated violations.

The DRB’s bottom line

Here, we determine that additional discipline would serve no purpose. In at least two matters – the Hardy matter (Manganello II) and the Conboy matter (Manganello III) – the misconduct occurred during the same time frame as respondent’s misconduct in the instant matter and was of the same nature. We determine that, had the instant matter been consolidated with the abovediscussed matters for our review and imposition of a global sanction, the aggregate quantum of discipline – an eighteen-month suspension – would have been the same. Further, as we stated in our April 6, 2021 decision in Manganello III, our determination to enhance respondent’s discipline to a one-year, consecutive suspension was premised upon respondent’s failure to reform his conduct despite his prior discipline and enhanced knowledge. Accordingly, the nature and timing of the facts underpinning the instant matter buttress our April 6, 2021 determination that “a one-year suspension consecutive to the six-month suspension imposed in [Manganello II], is the quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.”

Accordingly, under these circumstances, we find that respondent violated RPC 1.1(a); RPC 1.3; RPC 1.4(b); and RPC 8.4(c), but determine that no additional discipline, beyond the terms of suspension recently imposed by the Court in connection with Manganello II and Manganello III, is required to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.

(Mike Frisch)