Linked Out

A suspended attorney’s persistent pattern of unauthorized practice of law drew disbarment from the New Jersey Supreme Court.

From the Disciplinary Review Board’s findings

Here, respondent engaged in the third-degree unauthorized practice of law by continuing to practice law, for nearly eight years, while under a term of suspension, resulting in a $369,110.26 pecuniary benefit. During that timeframe, respondent was on actual notice that R. 1:20-20 prohibited him from engaging in the practice of law in any form. Indeed, respondent received such notice not only from the Court’s November 2009 and 2016 suspension Orders expressly requiring that he comply with R. 1:20-20, but also from the OAE’s May 19, 2017 letter objecting to his petition for reinstatement based on his continued practice of law while suspended. Despite such notice, respondent knowingly continued to engage in the unauthorized practice of law until March 2018, approximately ten months after the OAE had filed its objection letter.

The fact that respondent was not formally convicted of any crime is irrelevant to our finding that respondent engaged in criminal conduct. See In re Gallo, 178 N.J. 115, 121 (2003) (the scope of disciplinary review is not restricted, even though the attorney was neither charged with nor convicted of a crime). See also In re McEnroe, 172 N.J. 324 (2002) (attorney found to have violated RPC 8.4(b), despite not having been charged with or found guilty of a criminal offense), and In re Nazmiyal, 235 N.J. 222 (2018) (although an attorney was not charged with, or convicted of, violating New Jersey law surrounding the practice of debt adjustment, the attorney was found to have violated RPC 8.4(b)).

Respondent also violated RPC 8.4(d) by defying the Court’s November 2009 and 2016 Orders suspending him from the practice of law and requiring that he comply with R. 1:20-20.

Respondent violated R. 1:20-20 by not only engaging in the practice of law while suspended for nearly eight years, but also by procuring legal business and sharing in legal fees with the attorneys, as R. 1:20-20(b)(6) and (13), respectively, prohibit.

Specifically, in connection with his work for Cecere, respondent stipulated that Cecere would have testified that respondent had encouraged him to represent Elizabeth Lee in connection with her intent to appeal a Superior Court Order to the Appellate Division. Following Cecere and Lee’s execution of a retainer agreement, respondent further stipulated that Cecere would have testified that he and respondent had agreed to “split” Lee’s “funds evenly.”

In connection with his work for DeVito, respondent referred his former client, Anthony Fortino, who had been named as a defendant in a lawsuit, to DeVito for representation. Although DeVito did not provide respondent with a “flat” referral fee, he paid respondent an elevated $150 hourly rate for his work on the matter.

Additionally, respondent violated R. 1:20-20(b)(8) by failing to modify his publicly viewable LinkedIn profile page in which he continued to hold himself out as an “attorney at law” at the “Law Office of Dennis J. Oury.” Indeed, respondent failed to remove the false reference to his good standing as a New Jersey attorney even after the OAE had alerted him to the deceptive listing, during his November 2018 demand interview. To date, that profile remains active.

Finally, respondent violated RPC 8.4(c) by misrepresenting to Heitmann and Cecere that he was permitted to perform legal work while suspended.

Special Master findings

As the special master found, respondent’s crime of dishonesty in Oury I followed by his prolonged practice of law while suspended in the instant matter demonstrates his “effortless proclivity” to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct for his own personal financial gain. Although respondent knew that R. 1:20-20 governed his conduct while suspended, respondent instead chose to defy the Court’s suspension Orders, thumb his nose at the OAE’s warnings regarding his conduct, and concoct his own theories regarding the definition of the practice of law and the jurisprudence that governed his conduct to attempt to avoid accountability.

(Mike Frisch)