Red Bank

A criminal conviction drew a reprimand from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The Disciplinary Review Boad described the incident

On July 30, 2020, the Red Bank Police Department dispatched a police officer in response to a reported hit-and-run motor vehicle accident on a local road. Upon arriving at the scene, the responding officer, Officer Hernandez, observed a parked vehicle with damage to the driver’s side rear bumper. The owner of the parked vehicle informed the officer that the accident had been captured on surveillance video from a camera located on the side of a building. The officer obtained the video footage of the incident, which revealed a female, later identified as respondent, driving a dark gray Land Rover that had struck the parked car. No injuries were reported. A second witness to the incident contacted the police and provided a description of the vehicle, including its license plate number.

On the same date, an unidentified individual found a cellular telephone, later determined to belong to respondent, near the scene of the accident and provided it to Officer Shea, who also had responded to the accident. While in possession of the cellular telephone, Officer Shea answered an incoming telephone call in an attempt to make contact with the owner. The caller identified himself as Trooper Caso with the New Jersey State Police (the NJSP). Trooper Caso reported that he had just placed respondent under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol and inquired whether a hit-and-run had been reported in Red Bank. Subsequently, Officer Shea went to the NJSP station, located in Holmdel, to transfer custody of the cellular telephone. According to his police report, Officer Shea, while at the NJSP station, spoke with respondent, who admitted she had hit a vehicle in Red Bank and fled the scene.

Treatment evidence

Following the issuance of the charges in the instant matter, respondent has made extensive efforts toward obtaining her sobriety, including her voluntary completion of a twenty-eight-day in-patient program in September 2020; her continued in-person attendance at AA meetings; and her eight-month stay in a sober house from September 2020 to May 2021. Recognizing she required additional treatment, in February 2022, respondent was admitted to, and successfully completed, an additional twenty-eight-day in-patient treatment program. Immediately thereafter, she successfully completed another in-patient program.

Sanction

we determine that a reprimand is the baseline discipline for respondent’s misconduct. However, to craft the appropriate quantum of discipline in this case, we also consider mitigating and aggravating factors.

In mitigation, respondent has had an unblemished legal career with more than thirty years at the bar. See In re Convery, 166 N.J. 298, 308 (2001). Further, respondent accepted responsibility for her misconduct by pleading guilty and, as we observed and as Judge Butehorn stated, has made significant strides toward her recovery. She expressed sincere contrition and remorse to us, and has continued a successful path toward her sobriety.

However, in aggravation, this represents respondent’s third conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, and her second conviction for driving while her license was suspended, a consideration that we accord weight in fashioning our discipline. See In re Dempsey, 240 N.J. 221 (weighing, in aggravation, that the conduct underpinning the disciplinary matter represented the attorney’s fourth conviction for driving under the influence); In re Dowgier, 233 N.J. 291 (2017) (weighing, in aggravation, that the attorney’s misconduct stemmed from his second conviction for driving under the influence). Further, it was fortuitous that respondent did not injure anyone when she crashed into the parked car or, subsequently, when she proceeded to drive her vehicle on a major highway until her eventual arrest.

On balance, in view of the seriousness of the underlying offense, we conclude that respondent’s lack of a disciplinary history and her rehabilitative strides, though significant and laudable, are not sufficient mitigation to justify  a downward departure from the baseline quantum of discipline and, thus, we determine that a reprimand remains the proper quantum of discipline to protect the public and preserve the public’s confidence in the bar.

(Mike Frisch)