New Jersey Disbars Attorney
The New Jersey Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney admitted in 2011.
And respondent, among other requests, having asked the Court to vacate an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the City of Patterson, Municipal Court, which respondent asserts is illegal, and the Court having determined that it cannot act on that request, and respondent having been so informed;
And respondent having asked to appear telephonically, and the Court having determined that under the circumstances it would not be appropriate to proceed with this order to show cause by telephone;
And respondent having sent multiple submissions to the Court, which were made available to the Court and recounted on the record during the order to show cause;
And good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that David Richard Cubby, Jr., be disbarred, effective immediately, and that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys…
The Disciplinary Review Board report and recommendation noted a prior public censure
In the first matter comprising Cubby I, in March 2019, respondent, in his capacity as a pro se defendant in a landlord tenant case, continually interrupted his adversary during mediation and called him a “scumbag.” In the Matter of David Richard Cubby, Jr., DRB 20-304 (Aug. 3, 2021) at 15. During mediation, respondent became “loud,” “aggressive,” and “incensed” towards his adversary and, at one point, approached his adversary in a confrontational matter, requiring the mediator to intervene. Ibid. After mediation failed, respondent, during a court appearance, repeatedly interrupted the judge with insulting remarks; called her “corrupt;” refused to accept the judge’s rulings; and left the courtroom after she had directed that the matter proceed to trial. Id. at 24-25.
In April 2019, respondent filed, with the Appellate Division, a successful emergent motion seeking, among other relief, to stay the Superior Court’s eviction order. Id. at 18. Despite his success, respondent accused the Appellate Division of “either dropp[ing] the ball or [being] in on the scam” after the Appellate Division had informed him that it had no jurisdiction to consider his objections to the submissions of his adversary and the trial judge. Id. at 35.
In the second matter comprising Cubby I, respondent represented Paterson Coalition for Housing, Inc. (PCH) in connection with its status as a defendant in a Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division lawsuit filed by Bascom
Corporation (Bascom). Id. at 19. On March 27, 2019, respondent appeared before the Superior Court in connection with PCH’s motions to set aside a sheriff’s sale, vacate a final judgment, and discharge a lis pendens. Ibid. While the judge attempted to render a decision from the bench, respondent called the judge “corrupt;” accused the judge of issuing an “extrajudicial” decision; referred to opposing counsel as “clowns;” and accused the sheriff’s officer of threatening him after the officer directed him not to interrupt the court. Id. at 20-22.
During the ensuing ethics proceedings in Cubby I, respondent continued his vitriolic behavior by engaging in unsupported attacks against us; the OAE and its procedures; the witnesses; the District Ethics Committee (the DEC) chair; and the Office of Board Counsel (the OBC) and its procedures. Id. at 3-9. Among other attacks, respondent baselessly accused disciplinary authorities of corruption or incompetence, expressed his belief that the OAE had prosecuted him in a “sham investigation,” the purpose of which “only served to protect parties believed to be actively engaging in misappropriating government funds,” and claimed that the OBC had attempted to “have [his] matter rubber stamped for discipline while allowing [the Board] to avoid accountability.” Id. at 4, 7-9.
A three-month suspension
We determined that a three-month suspension was the appropriate quantum of discipline, emphasizing that respondent’s misconduct was consistent with his scorched-earth strategy to attempt to undermine the Court’s disciplinary process and served no purpose other than to seek to intimidate judiciary staff and disciplinary authorities. Id. at 22-23. We also weighed, in aggravation, the default status of the matter and the fact that respondent’s vitriolic behavior had continued, uninterrupted, since his misconduct underlying Cubby I.
Here, the misconduct involved practice after suspension, failure to comply with court orders and failure to cooperate with the OAE investigation
Applying the principles set forth in Templeton and D’Arienzo, based on respondent’s ongoing refusal to acknowledge the validity of his Court-ordered suspensions and ineligibility to practice law, his open declarations that he will continue to ignore the OAE’s requests for information as “void,” and his unrelenting and disturbing behavior towards judges, disciplinary members, and court staff spanning three consecutive default matters, we determine that, should respondent ever be restored to practice, his assault on the Rules of Professional Conduct will continue. In our view, respondent’s conduct demonstrates that he is unable to act in conformity with the standards of the profession, and he has made clear that he will not do so in the future. Thus, to preserve the integrity of the bar and to protect the public from his dangerous practices, we determine to recommend to the Court that respondent be disbarred.
Members Joseph and Rodriguez voted to recommend the imposition of an indeterminate suspension, with the condition that, prior to his reinstatement, respondent demonstrate that he has sought and successfully participated in psychological treatment.
(Mike Frisch)