Knowing, Brazen And Censured

The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured an attorney based on that recommendation from the Disciplinary Review Board

respondent forged [client] Doughty’s name on the unexecuted version of their retainer agreement, backdated the agreement, and then attempted to pass off the agreement to the OAE as a genuine document. Also like Homan, who had an actual, though undocumented, client loan, respondent had an actual attorney-client relationship with Doughty, the terms of which were reflected in an original retainer agreement, which respondent failed to locate during the OAE’s audit. Additionally, as in Homan, respondent’s misconduct appears to have been motivated by his embarrassment regarding his failure to produce executed versions of his clients’ retainer agreements to the OAE in connection with its audit. Unlike Homan, however, whose deception spanned several months, respondent’s deception to the OAE was confined to a two-day period, during which he, eventually, admitted to his impropriety.

Finally, like the censured attorney in Freda, respondent knowingly and brazenly practiced law while ineligible for several months. Unlike Freda, however, respondent did not allow this matter to proceed as a default.

Respondent also had issued two bad checks for filing fees. ( Mike Frisch)

In mitigation, more than seven years have elapsed since respondent’s misconduct ended and, in that time, he has had no additional discipline.