A Substantially Different Sanction

The New Jersey Supreme Court imposed reciprocal discipline of a three-month suspension, reducing the year and a day sanction ordered in Pennsylvania.

Reinstatement requires medical attestation of proof of fitness.

The court adopted the recommendation of its Disciplinary Review Board to impose “substantially different discipline” than Pennsylvania

In our view, subsection (E) applies here because the unethical conduct established by the record warrants substantially different discipline. As discussed below, the crux of respondent’s misconduct was twofold: (1) her practice of law while administratively ineligible, and (2) her gross neglect of the A.A. matter. Pursuant to New Jersey disciplinary precedent, respondent’s misconduct warrants a three-month suspension, rather than the one-year suspension that would be the equivalent to the one-year-and-one-day suspension imposed in Pennsylvania.

Sanction

On balance, we find that the mitigating factors are outweighed by the egregious effect of respondent’s misconduct on A.A., who suffered a loss of liberty for more than a week owing to respondent’s failures to attend a court 44 proceeding and, thereafter, to take any steps whatsoever to attempt to have the resulting bench warrant lifted. Accordingly, we determine to grant the motion for reciprocal discipline and conclude that a three-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.

In addition, because the joint petition indicated the need for respondent to prove her fitness to practice law before being reinstated in Pennsylvania, we also determine to recommend the condition that, prior to reinstatement in New Jersey, she provide to the OAE proof of her fitness to practice law, as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the OAE.

(Mike Frisch)