“Witch Hunt”
The New Jersey Supreme Court imposed a three-month suspension for misconduct described by the Disciplinary Review Board
Between April 2016 and September 2019, Branigan & Associates, LLC (B&A) embarked upon an extensive advertising campaign throughout New Jersey to solicit clients via direct mail solicitation letters. Although respondent did not personally transmit the solicitation letters, he acknowledged his responsibility for the content of B&A’s advertisements, given his status as the firm’s managing partner. Specifically, respondent claimed that he assigned other B&A attorneys to oversee the mailing of solicitation letters with his “general oversight.” In that capacity, respondent claimed that he took “reasonable steps to ensure quality control” by supervising his employees and by reviewing the templates of the solicitation letters before his staff sent them to prospective clients.
The Committee on Attorney Advertising had reviewed the numerous letters at issue
The CAA analogized respondent’s misconduct to that of the censured attorney in In re Rakofsky, 223 N.J. 349 (2015), who, as detailed below, fabricated his credentials in his attorney advertising. The CAA noted that, although respondent did not fabricate his credentials, he “displayed a similar level of arrogance and disdain for the advertising rules by sending a million noncompliant solicitation letters over an extended period of time, after the [CAA] had notified [B&A] that the letters violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
The DRB sustained numerous CAA findings of ethics violations and noted
respondent’s conduct during the disciplinary proceedings was deceitful and, at the very least, demonstrated a disdain for the disciplinary process designed to protect the public. Specifically, contrary to his sworn statements in his verified answer that B&A had, in fact, transmitted most of the solicitation letters presented by the OAE, during the ethics hearing, respondent refused to acknowledge that his firm had transmitted any of the letters and, instead, argued that the solicitation letters were admitted into evidence without any “chain of custody” and could have been found in a “dumpster” or in a “recycling bin in the back of a Walmart.” At other times, respondent baselessly alleged that the solicitation letters were “from a questionable origin” and may have been “manufacter[ed]” by B&A’s “competitors.”
Respondent further accused the OAE and the CAA of embarking upon an “utter witch hunt against him” based, in part, on his unsupported personal view that those entities were in an “unholy alliance” and held a “bias against him.” See In re Cubby, 250 N.J. 428 (2022) (according significant aggravating weight to the attorney’s baseless accusations that disciplinary authorities, prosecutors, and judges had conspired to falsely accuse him of misconduct; the attorney had engaged in a prolonged, scorched-earth strategy to undermine the disciplinary process).
Sanction
In conclusion, during a three-and-a-half-year period between April 2016 and September 2019, respondent embarked upon an extensive and improper advertising campaign throughout New Jersey, during which his firm utilized grossly misleading letterheads and scare tactics in its attempt to solicit clients. Many of respondent’s letters contained grossly deceptive “COUNTY DIVISION” letterheads, improper “URGENT COURT MATTER!” notices on the envelopes, and misleading information regarding the penal and criminal consequences of committing traffic offenses. Rather than accept genuine responsibility for his firm’s advertising, respondent launched baseless attacks against the integrity of the OAE and the CAA, blamed B&A’s competitors for “manufacturing” the improper letters, and characterized the disciplinary proceedings against him as a “witch hunt.” In light of these aggravating facts, and considering that respondent’s culpability in B&A’s improper advertising campaign was far more egregious than that of Fritz, who received a reprimand, we determine that a three-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar.
(Mike Frisch)