Second Sanction
A one-year suspension has been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court based on the recommendation of its Disciplinary Review Board
Respondent earned admission to the New Jersey bar in 2006 and to the Pennsylvania bar in 2007. At the relevant times, he was “of counsel” to Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP (Morgan Lewis) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Respondent has no prior discipline in New Jersey
The sanction was reciprocal discipline based on a year and a day suspension in Pennsylvania
Respondent’s deception resulted in significant harm to [his client] CSI when, in October 2017, more than a month after respondent failed to appeal the BOA’s decisions by the September 5 deadline, CSI discovered the Department’s lien and queried respondent how the lien was “even possible give[n] our appeal of the PA tax assessment[.]” Thereafter, rather than inform CSI of the BOA’s adverse decisions, respondent falsely advised CSI that the BFR would be contacting him regarding the “procedures to have [the lien] removed” because it was “issued in error” in light of CSI’s pending “appeal” of the Department’s tax assessment. Based on CSI’s general counsel’s intent to submit an opinion letter in connection with the refinancing of CSI’s loan, the general counsel sought clarification from respondent regarding whether the BFR specifically had conceded that the Department had issued the lien in error and would have it removed. Respondent, in reply, falsely advised the general counsel that he could “attest” that: the Department “errantly” had issued the lien”; that the appropriate Department officials were “actively working to have the lien removed”; and that the lien would be “removed” and the matter resolved “within the next 30 to 45 days.” Although the record is unclear whether the general counsel ultimately issued his opinion letter, respondent’s conduct had the potential to cause CSI to provide false information in connection with the refinancing of its loan.
Additionally, on November 7, 2017, respondent, without CSI’s knowledge, filed an untimely appeal of the BOA’s decisions with the BFR. At the same time, respondent also filed with the BFR CSI’s proposed comprise request, attempting to persuade the Department to remove its lien. Although the Department’s attorney twice informed respondent, in December 2017, that the Department had no interested in pursuing a compromise with CSI, respondent continued to mislead CSI, between January and March 2018, that the delayed resolution of its matter was merely “just a matter of scheduling and the formal process[,]” that CSI was “scheduled for the meeting to have our compromise approved[,]” and that there was “nothing else we need to do.”
In light of a number of false statements, the DRB called Respondent’s conduct a “prolonged campaign of deception” of his client
Respondent’s acts of deception were not confined to his communications with CSI. Specifically, respondent violated RPC 3.1(a)(1) and (4), along with RPC 8.4(c), by submitting two false affidavits to the BFR in connection with its request that he explain the untimely circumstances of CSI’s appeal.
(Mike Frisch)