A six-month suspension was imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

As described by the Disciplinary Review Board, Respondent had a previous three-month suspension

Specifically, respondent’s criminal conviction arose from a 2011 “road rage” incident. In the Matter of John J. Collins, DRB 15-140 (December 15, 2015) at 3. Angered by the actions of another driver, he exited his vehicle, retrieved a baseball bat from the trunk, and struck the driver’s vehicle multiple times. Ibid. His strikes to the vehicle broke the windshield and a side mirror and caused the driver and a passenger in the vehicle to be placed in imminent fear of bodily injury. Ibid.

Respondent’s suspension in Collins I took effect on October 21, 2016. On March 21, 2017, the Court reinstated him to the practice of law. In re Collins, 228 N.J. 235 (2017). As conditions of his reinstatement, the Court continued to require that, until the further Order of the Court, “no disbursements be made from his attorney trust account without the signature of the cosignatory, pursuant to the Order of the Court filed March 8, 2013,” and newly ordered that respondent “shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics until the further Order of the Court.” Ibid.

Here

Following our de novo review of the record, we are satisfied that the DEC’s determination that respondent violated RPC 1.15(a), RPC 1.15(d), RPC 5.5(a)(1), RPC 8.4(c), and RPC 8.4(d) (one instance) is supported by clear and convincing evidence. However, we respectfully part company with the DEC’s determination that respondent also violated RPC 8.4(d) in the Mira Holdings matter.

Among the violations

…he blatantly circumvented the 2013 Court Order that required a cosignatory and knowingly misrepresented to his cosignatory, by omission, that he had not disbursed any client funds. Moreover, respondent knowingly persisted in making such disbursements between February and June 2016. He first issued two checks from his ABA in the Velardi matter, and subsequently made seven disbursements from his ABA in the Jedziniak matter. The fact that there is no allegation that he misdirected the clients’ funds does not lessen the dishonesty involved in his egregious failure to alert the cosignatory, over a period of months, as he repeatedly disbursed funds entrusted to him.

Sanction

On balance, finding the aggravating and mitigating factors in equipoise, we determine that a six-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline to protect the public and to promote confidence in the bar.

Chair Gallipoli and Members Hoberman and Rivera voted to impose an eighteen-month suspension.

Member Campelo voted to impose a one-year suspension.

(Mike Frisch)