Hurry Sundown

The New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed a three-month suspension for misconduct described by the Disciplinary Review Board

In 2013, Daniel Zaltsman and Erick Szentmiklosy jointly founded a business. In 2014, a third partner joined their team; however, some years later, that partner left the venture and launched a new business.

Subsequently, Zaltsman and Szentmiklosy sought to pursue a number of legal claims against their former business partner. In January 2019, they retained respondent to file suit, paying him an initial retainer fee of $10,000. The written retainer agreement set forth an hourly rate for respondent and a second attorney, Anthony Solano, Esq.

In his ethics grievance, Zaltsman asserted that, after he and Szentmiklosy retained respondent, “[f]or a year we actively pursued the case and [respondent] delivered on his commitments to move the case forward.” Supporting this account, the eCourts docket for their civil lawsuit reflects that, on November 10, 2019, respondent filed the complaint. Thereafter, on November 26, 2019, defense counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Respondent timely filed opposition to the defense motion.

According to the trial court’s December 24, 2019 order on the motion (which was not included in the record but is publicly available to us through eCourts), following oral argument on December 23, 2019, the trial court denied the defense motion. Thereafter, the matter proceeded with defense counsel’s filing of an answer, followed by numerous case management conferences in 2020 and early 2021. The ethics complaint alleged that respondent then “failed to appear for numerous court hearings . . . between December 2019 and . . . July 2021,” citing the eCourts case jacket.

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, respondent informed Zaltsman and Szentmiklosy that litigation matters were proceeding more slowly. Eventually, however, he stopped responding to their telephone calls and text messages seeking updates on the status of their matter. He also ceased communicating with opposing counsel.

On or around June 23, 2021, respondent failed to appear for a case management conference in the matter. On July 27, 2021, he again failed to appear for a case management conference.

Consequently, on July 27, 2021, the trial court entered an order dismissing the complaint, with prejudice.

Last contact

Respondent last communicated with Zaltsman and Szentmiklosy in April and May 2022, more than eight months after their lawsuit had been dismissed. Specifically, in an April 21, 2022 text message, respondent informed one or both of them that he was not available to speak with them because he allegedly was working on a case for the Ukrainian Minister of Defense. In a May 6, 2022 text message, he informed them that he was unavailable because he needed to complete a matter for Orthodox Jewish clients before the start of the sabbath, at sundown.

Sanction

On balance, we determine that a three-month suspension is the quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar. Additionally, based on respondent’s inability to provide basic or coherent responses to straightforward questions posed by the investigator during their telephone call, we recommend, as a condition to his reinstatement, that respondent be required to provide to the OAE proof of fitness to practice law, as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the OAE.

(Mike Frisch)