Directly Touching Or Not
The New Jersey Supreme Court has remanded a proposed three-month suspension matter for a “more detailed record” in a case involving a criminal conviction
The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 22-140, concluding as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20- 13(c)(2), that Julie Anna La Van of Moorestown, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2006, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months following her guilty plea and adjudication in the Shelby Town Court, Orleans County, New York, to misdemeanor obstructing governmental administration, in violation of New York Penal Law § 195.05, and for violating RPC 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), and having found that respondent’s “misconduct directly touched upon her law license”;
And respondent having filed a petition for review, which in part contests that her “misconduct directly touched upon her law license”
The court thus ordered that a special master conduct an evidentiary hearing.
It is ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Review Board to convene an evidentiary hearing before a Special Ethics Master who shall develop a detailed record and make findings in respect of whether respondent’s misconduct directly touched upon her law license
The Disciplinary Review Board had described the conviction
On July 4, 2021, N.W. reported to the New York Orleans County Sheriff’s Office (the NY OCSO) that respondent, who was a family friend, and her boyfriend, Mark Anson, had come to his residence, in Yates, New York, and threatened him. N.W. had not seen respondent for some time, but knew she practiced law in New Jersey. During their visit, respondent and Anson inquired about the value of a farm N.W. owned with his estranged wife, from whom he was getting divorced. N.W. told Anson “I don’t know you. Stop asking me questions. Shut up.” Anson responded by pulling out an 8-to-10-inch curved knife, which he then held to N.W.’s throat and stated “[g]ive her a good settlement. If this isn’t done by Friday I’ll be back and it won’t be good. Respondent told N.W., “I’m filing paperwork tomorrow and this will be settled by Friday.” Then she and Anson left the residence.
P.W. reported that he had received harassing text messages from respondent after she left the residence. In fact, while he was with a NY OSCO officer, P.W. received a telephone call from respondent, who said “you and your father better figure it out by Friday or we[’]re filing papers and selling the . . .farm. Got it.” The officer then identified himself on the telephone call and questioned respondent about her tactics. In reply, respondent laughed and stated “[o]h this is the leverage they’re going to use now.” The officer told respondent to expect a visit shortly. In reply, respondent again laughed and stated “we will be waiting for you.”
Later, three police officers arrived at respondent’s location. When questioned by the officers, Anson gave evasive answers and a fake name. The officers attempted to place Anson under arrest and, when he resisted, respondent interfered by placing her hand on an officer’s arm. Subsequently, when the officers attempted to place Anson into the patrol vehicle, respondent approached them from behind and officer Martin Stirk, Jr. “pulled her away again.” Allegedly, respondent then intentionally struck officer Stirk in the face with her fist, causing him to experience redness and pain on the right side of his face.
Charges ensued
On May 3, 2022, before the Honorable Dawn M. Keppler, Judge of the Shelby Town Court, respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree obstructing governmental administration, a misdemeanor offense. Although respondent did not plead guilty to the assault charge, the parties referred to it as being “covered”
The conviction was reported about a year later.
DRB on sanction
In aggravation, we accord respondent’s disciplinary history significant weight. This matter represents respondent’s third disciplinary proceeding in just as many years. Specifically, the Court’s prior disciplinary Orders are dated July 12, 2019 (reprimand) and November 18, 2021 (censure). In LaVan I, respondent twice violated RPC 8.4(a) and (c) and, in LaVan II she violated RPC 1.7(a). Now, she has violated RPC 8.4(b)…
On balance, we determine that a three-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline.
The DRB had found that the offense “directed touched on her law license.” (Mike Frisch)