Car Trouble

The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured a previously-censured attorney for a trespass offense committed during his representation in an estate matter.

The Disciplinary Review Board described the offense when he was denied permission to enter premises that held antique vehicles he wished to have appraised

Nevertheless, on September 15, 2018, respondent entered the Property, for the second time, with the purpose to remove the antique vehicles so that he could get the vehicles appraised and transported out of state to be sold at auction. Respondent neither notified nor received permission from the Grievant, Ferrante, or Baer [who asserted claims against the Estate].

On September 15, 2018, respondent arrived at the Grievant’s house prior to a tow service. Respondent knew that the house was vacant and entered the garage to gain access to the vehicles. Respondent then gave the tow service access to the vehicles in the garage. The tow service moved one of the Grievant’s vehicles from the driveway, which was not one of the antique vehicles in dispute, in order to access the antique vehicles stored in the garage.

The police arrived at the Property after two antique vehicles had been removed by the tow service. Subsequently, after speaking with a Mercer County Assistant Prosecutor, respondent directed the tow service to return the vehicles to the Grievant’s property. A towing employee confirmed that he was on the Grievant’s property to remove the antique vehicles and that respondent was present. The employee had been instructed to tow the four vehicles to his yard, and the vehicles were to be shipped to an auction house in Florida by a separate shipping company.

On September 27, 2018, the Grievant filed Complaint-Summons S-2018- 000622-1107 with the Municipal Court of Lawrence Township, and respondent was subsequently charged with trespassing, a disorderly persons offense. On March 20, 2019, respondent appeared before the Honorable Lewis J. Korngut, J.M.C., and, after his motion to dismiss was denied, he pled guilty to a lesser offense of violating a municipal ordinance, and was fined $350, plus court costs.

Sanction

On balance, weighing respondent’s surreptitious effort to remove the antique vehicles and his prior censure for dishonest conduct, we conclude that his willingness to cooperate with the OAE is insufficient mitigation to warrant imposition of discipline less than the censure we imposed in Valvano. Accordingly, we determine that a censure remains the appropriate quantum of discipline to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.

(Mike Frisch)