Over The Threshold

The New Jersey Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney for mishandling a matter in the same time period where other misconduct took place that had resulted in suspension.

From the report of the Disciplinary Review Board

in the past four years, respondent has demonstrated a consistent and alarming trend of deserting clients, practicing law while suspended, and refusing to reply to disciplinary authorities seeking to address his conduct. Here, respondent accepted legal fees from DeWitt and Crowley without performing any legal work, ignored their repeated pleas for information regarding their matter, and declined to refund his retainer fee. Indeed, respondent committed client  by shuttering his law office, relocating to Florida, and, thereafter, relocating to another, unknown address, without notifying DeWitt and Crowley or updating his residential address with the OAE, as R. 1:20-1(c) requires. Moreover, respondent failed to reply in any way to the DEC’s requests for information and allowed this matter to proceed as a default. Significantly, this matter represents respondent’s fifth consecutive default, within the past two years, and the seventh consecutive disciplinary investigation, within the past three years, that he has elected to completely ignore.

Respondent’s ongoing mistreatment of his clients, indifference to the Court’s November 2020 temporary suspension Order, and refusal to cooperate in any way with disciplinary authorities demonstrates that he is a danger to the public and “[in]capable of meeting the standards that must guide all members of the profession.” In re Cammarano, 219 N.J. 415, 421 (2014) (citing In re Harris, 182 N.J. 594, 609 (2005)). Based on these profound aggravating factors, we determine that, had this matter been considered with Stack III and Stack IV, respondent’s combined misconduct would have placed him over the threshold of disbarment, a sanction well supported by disciplinary precedent.

(Mike Frisch)