No Venal Motive
The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded an attorney.
From the letter decision of the Disciplinary Review Board
Between September 2015 and April 2020, respondent advanced funds to three clients – Tamer Fawzy, Mohamed Eid, and Shaun Franklin – totaling $20,410, during his respective representation of each. Respondent provided interest-free financial assistance to these three clients using his personal funds, with the understanding that he would be repaid from any future settlement proceeds. Respondent maintained that, prior to advancing funds to each client, he assessed whether the potential settlement would be sufficient to cover the loan amount. Respondent admitted that, by loaning money to Fawzy, Eid, and Franklin, he improperly acted as both their attorney and their creditor.
A conflict of interest involving two repeat pro bono clients
Beginning in 2017 and continuing until 2021, respondent represented J.D., on a pro bono basis, in at least twenty-seven criminal and municipal court matters, including in defense of charges for simple assault; disturbing the peace; receiving stolen property; and various motor vehicle offenses.
In October 2020, respondent represented Thomas Armstrong, also on a pro bono basis, in connection with disorderly conduct and simple assault charges pending in Hazlet Municipal Court. At the time, Armstrong was engaged in a romantic relationship with J.D. Respondent also represented Armstrong, on a pro bono basis, in seven additional criminal and municipal court matters, including charges of simple assault; burglary; criminal trespass; and disorderly conduct.
On October 30, 2020, Armstrong allegedly assaulted J.D. and was charged with simple assault, a disorderly persons offense, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12- 1(a)(1), by the Middletown Township Police Department (the Middletown I matter). Less than two months later, on December 8, 2020, Armstrong again allegedly assaulted J.D., within the jurisdiction of Middletown Township and, again, was charged with simple assault. (the Middletown II matter).
On February 15, 2021, respondent entered his appearance on behalf of Armstrong in both the Middletown 1 and Middletown II matters and requested discovery from the Middletown Township Police Department. On February 22 2021, respondent received the discovery and, while reviewing it, discovered that J.D., his client, was the alleged victim in both matters.
Respondent admitted that he represented J.D., albeit in different court matters, while concurrently representing Armstrong in the Middletown I and Middletown II municipal court matters.
Respondent admitted that, after learning J.D. was the victim and material witness in the Middletown I and Middletown II matters, he did not withdraw as Armstrong’s attorney. Respondent further admitted that, despite the conflict of interest created by his simultaneous representation of J.D. and Armstrong, he failed to obtain written informed consent from both of his clients, as RPC 1.7(b)(1) requires.
On March 5, 2021, Armstrong again allegedly assaulted J.D. and was charged with simple assault by the Tinton Falls Police Department (the Tinton Falls matter). On March 20, 2021, respondent entered his appearance on behalf of J.D., as the victim in the Tinton Falls matter and, on behalf of J.D., requested the dismissal of the charges against Armstrong.
Respondent admitted that he had represented Armstrong, albeit in different matters, while concurrently representing J.D. in the Tinton Falls municipal court matter.
There were also recordkeeping violations.
Sanction
In mitigation, respondent has no prior formal discipline in his twenty-seven years at the bar. In re Convery, 166 N.J. 298, 308 (2001). Further, he stipulated to his misconduct. Moreover, respondent’s misconduct was not motivated by venality or pecuniary gain. Indeed, his representation of Armstrong and J.D. was pro bono, and his monetary advances were intended to assist clients who were in financial need. While these facts do not obviate respondent’s obligation to adhere to the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Board considered them in mitigation. There is no aggravation to consider.
(Mike Frisch)