One Censure Is Enough

The New Jersey Supreme Court determined to dismiss ethics charges against a now-former judge, rejecting the proposed reprimand of the Disciplinary Review Board.

The court determined that

the conduct underlying the charges in this attorney disciplinary matter necessarily was addressed in In re Thurber, 255 N.J. 321 (2023), wherein the Court imposed a censure…

From the DRB report

In our view, respondent violated both RPCs by failing to perform, for more than twenty-four years, the work required to complete the administration of the McKinley Estate. Specifically, respondent failed to perform her fiduciary duties to the estate by not completing a search for heirs or conclusively establishing the existence of heirs; not closing the estate bank accounts; not disbursing the proceeds; not filing an accounting with the court; not withdrawing as counsel of record; and not filing a substitution of attorney. Her prolonged failure to finalize the McKinley Estate deprived heirs of the timely receipt of their inheritance.

In sum, we find that respondent violated RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 1.3. The sole issue left for our determination is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s misconduct.

The matter involved reciprocal discipline for a censure imposed by the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct. (Mike Frisch)