Only In New Jersey

A reprimand has been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court based on the findings contained in a letter decision of the Disciplinary Review Board.

Conditions

ORDERED that respondent shall submit to the Office of Attorney Ethics within thirty days of this order (1) proof that respondent has corrected the improper images of business checks on statements pertaining to respondent’s attorney business account #xxxx2160, in accordance with Rule 1:21-6(b), (2) all outstanding previously requested financial records, (3) proof that respondent has resolved the title issue in the DeVito matter and disbursed the remaining $2,695.73 to the buyer, or that a legitimate dispute remains ongoing, and (4) proof that respondent disbursed funds in the Farese to Farese and Rosenthal and Niles to Manton matters, deposited those funds with the Superior Court Trust Fund, or maintained active balance…

From the letter decision

As set forth in the stipulation, respondent successfully completed a trust and business accounting course in September 2019. Nearly three years later, the OAE conducted a random audit of his financial records, which revealed significant recordkeeping deficiencies and the invasion of client funds.

Specifically, respondent maintained at least ten inactive balances in his ATA, dating back as far as January 2018 and totaling $5,848.03. By August 2024, when the stipulation was filed, respondent had disbursed seven of those ten balances and deposited funds for two others matters with the Superior Court Trust Fund. The remaining funds ($2,695.73) pertained to a disputed real estate matter. Thus, by failing to promptly deliver funds belonging to a client or third person entitled to such funds, respondent violated RPC 1.15(b).

Further, for nearly four years, respondent repeatedly invaded client funds that he was required to hold, inviolate, in this attorney trust account (ATA). Specifically, respondent invaded the funds of eighty-five clients by maintaining a negative balance in his HFW Escrow account.

Moreover, although he ultimately cured the deficits by depositing funds in his ATA, respondent also invaded the funds of 147 different clients in connection with the 18BVA, Burke to Williams, and Fuschetti/Piazza, matters; 41 clients in connection with the Morciglio matter; and 129 clients in connection with the Sterling/Morales matter. Respondent, thus, negligently invaded funds he was entrusted to hold, inviolate, in violation of RPC1.15(a). Moreover, respondent admittedly violated RPC 1.15(d) by failing to (1) properly designate his ATA; (2) maintain proper check images; and (3) maintain fully descriptive client trust ledgers.

The OAE also asserted that respondent violated RPC 1.8(a) by entering into an improper business transaction with a client, noting he had agreed to loan money to a member of the Atlantic Coast Development Partners of Eatontown, LLC (an organization he represented), who was also his personal friend. However, respondent represented the organization, and not his friend, to whom he loaned the money. Thus, in the absence of an attorney-client relationship, respondent was not obligated to comply with the safeguards delineated in RPC 1.8(a) prior to entering into a loan transition with his friend. Additionally, there was no evidence of a significant risk that respondent’s representation of Atlantic Coast would be materially limited by respondent’s personal interest in the loan he made to his friend.

Respondent has no prior formal discipline in his 51 year career as an attorney. (Mike Frisch)