Seeing Red

The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured an attorney.

From the report of the Disciplinary Review Board

This matter was before us on a motion for final discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (the OAE), pursuant to R. 1:20-13(c)(2), following respondent’s guilty plea and convictions, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, to disorderly persons obstructing the administration of law, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a), and petty disorderly persons harassment, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a). The OAE asserted that these offenses constitute violations of RPC 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects).

For the reasons set forth below, we determine to grant the motion for final discipline and conclude that a censure, with a condition, is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s misconduct.

A prior reprimand

In that matter, in April 2013, respondent misrepresented to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and to her adversary that a fee agreement between her and her client, which she produced in response to her adversary’s motion to compel production of that agreement, was the original document. In the Matter of Julie Anna LaVan, DRB 18-232 (December 27, 2018) at 7, 9-10. In fact, after the filing of the motion, respondent had re-created and backdated the document, and then had instructed her client to re-execute it, because she could not locate the original. Ibid.

There is also a second reprimand and a remanded proposed three-month suspension for a mesdemeanor obstructing govermental administration in New York

On July 12, 2023, the Court remanded the matter to us to convene an evidentiary hearing before a special ethics master to develop a record and make findings on the issue of whether respondent’s misconduct directly touched upon her law license. In re LaVan, 254 N.J. 431 (2023). That matter remains pending completion of the evidentiary hearing and the submission and our review of the special ethics master’s report.

This matter involves two convictions for 2019 inceidents that stemmed from an acrimonius separation

On or about February 21, 2019, while in Chicago, respondent learned that William was involved in a romantic relationship with her friend and confidante, J.D. The next day, respondent communicated with J.D. in a threatening manner via text, e-mail, and voicemail messages. By her own admission, respondent’s text messages were “cast in offensively coarse and alarming language.’” Moreover, on February 22, she sent an e-mail message to J.D., William, respondent’s accountant, and the accountant’s wife, under the subject heading “I will fucking kill you over and over again;” therein, she referred to one person (unidentified in the record) as a “gold digging slut;” stated to the accountant, “if this bitch touches my stuff it will be the end of your career;” and stated to the accountant’s wife, “you are a lying bitch, too.”

According to respondent, the next day, she apologized to J.D. via voicemail, e-mail, or text message. She also promptly enrolled in a six-week intensive psychotherapy program, which she successfully completed in April 2019.

She pled guilty to a petty disorderly persons offense.

The second matter

On May 7, 2019, respondent signed and attempted to deposit in her personal checking account at Liberty Bell Bank, three checks, totaling $13,500, issued by Impact Environmental Consulting, Inc. (IEC), payable to William’s company, Bella Earth, LLC. She admittedly endorsed the checks without William’s consent. At the time, IEC had filed a civil suit, pending in the Supreme Court for Suffolk County, New York, against respondent and her law firm. On May 16, 2019,  William reported respondent’s alleged theft of the checks to the police.

As a consequence

on June 16, 2022, in addition to accepting her guilty plea to harassment, Judge Burke accepted respondent’s guilty plea to one count of disorderly persons obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a),6 based on her misconduct involving the checks.

Explanation of the disorderly persons offense

she emphasized that she sent her harassing communications to J.D. after learning that J.D. and William were having an affair. In her words, when she received this information, she “went completely red, my whole marriage flashed in front of me, everything I thought about my life, my marriage, became completely false;” she then, admittedly, “got on the phone and emailed her. I don’t remember, I threatened her and [William.]” She also claimed that, at the time, she “had reason to believe that her husband and her accountant were colluding against her.” Thus, “in shock, [she] succumbed to her human emotions and ‘lost it’ and sent communications to her husband’s paramour ‘cast in offensively co[a]rse and alarming language.” At the time, she was in Chicago. Moreover, she again stated that, the next morning, she apologized to J.D. via voicemail, email, or text message and, at a later date, apologized to her again.

Sanction

On balance, we determine that the aggravating and mitigating factors are in equipoise and, thus, conclude that a censure is the proper quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar. As a condition to her discipline, we recommend that respondent be required to provide proof of fitness to practice law, as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the OAE, within sixty days of the Court’s issuance of a disciplinary Order in this matter.

The court order includes the medical attestation. (Mike Frisch)