Failure To Insure

An attorney with a prior record of discipline and defaults was suspended for three months by the New Jersey Supreme Court for failure to have liability insurance and t o respond to the allegations.

The Disciplinary Review Board report

Here, respondent incorporated as a professional corporation – Kendal Coleman, P.C. – on July 21, 2004. Consequently, respondent was required, by Court Rule, to maintain professional liability insurance and to file certificates of insurance with the Clerk. Respondent did neither and, consequently, violated RPC 5.5(a)(1), which prohibits a lawyer from practicing “law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.”

Respondent also violated RPC 8.1(b), which requires an attorney to “respond to a lawful demand for information from . . . [a] disciplinary authority.” Here, respondent violated this Rule by failing to file a verified answer to the formal ethics complaint and allowing this matter to proceed as a default.

Reasons for suspension

In aggravation, we accord significant weight to respondent’s disciplinary history. This matter represents respondent’s fourth encounter with the disciplinary system in five years, albeit our third decision as the result of the consolidation of two matters in Coleman I. The Court has signaled an inclination toward progressive discipline and the stern treatment of repeat offenders. In such scenarios, enhanced discipline is appropriate…

Thus, respondent was on notice that his failure to comply with R. 1:21-1A would, and indeed did, result in discipline. Yet, to date, respondent has neither obtained the required liability insurance nor filed a certificate of insurance with the Clerk.

It is worth noting that respondent also had a heightened awareness of his obligation to insure his corporation as a result of the four administrative contacts from the Supreme Court, occurring between April 16 and July 6, 2021. His failure to follow the Clerk’s explicit direction ultimately necessitated the disciplinary referral.

Thus, respondent’s failure to conform his conduct to the Rules, despite his heightened awareness of this obligation, reflects a willful decision on his part to ignore our previous decision and the Court’s disciplinary Order, and to place his own financial interests above those of his clients.

Equally concerning is respondent’s prior representation to us in Coleman I wherein, in his motion to vacate default, he claimed to have obtained liability insurance in 2017. Given the instant complaint, however, respondent’s earlier representation to us was either false at the time it was made or, alternatively, respondent allowed his insurance coverage to lapse, in violation of the Rule. Either alarming scenario is indicative of respondent’s disregard of the professional standards to which he is obligated to adhere. Moreover, respondent never provided the Clerk with his certificate of insurance, also in violation of the Rule, despite having been disciplined for his failure to do so.

(Mike Frisch)