On Condition

An attorney who was conditionally admitted in 2017 failed to fulfill the terms of the admission and did not cooperate in the ensuring bar investigation has been suspended for an indeterminate term by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

From the recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board

on August 31, 2017, the Court ordered respondent’s conditional admission to the New Jersey bar, for at least two years and until further Order of the Court, subject to the limitations set forth in respondent’s August 25, 2017 12 stipulation with the COC. Pursuant to his stipulated conditions, respondent agreed to (1) attend a trust accounting and recordkeeping class; (2) complete six CLE credit hours focused on honesty in the profession; (3) continue to attend at least two monthly counseling sessions with a COC approved therapist; and (4) practice law only as an associate attorney of another lawyer with at least five years of experience at the bar. Additionally, the Court required that respondent provide quarterly certifications to the COC attesting to his compliance with his conditions.

In December 2021, the Court denied respondent’s motion to terminate his bar admission conditions and required that his conditions continue for at least another two years, until further Order of the Court. However, rather than attempt to comply with the limitations placed upon his law license, the Court’s July 2022 Order found that respondent “failed to comply with the conditions imposed on his license, including the requirement that he file certifications attesting to his compliance with the enumerated conditions.” Consequently, in its July 2022 Order, the Court required that respondent “fully comply” with his bar admission conditions within thirty days or face potential temporary suspension. Respondent again failed to comply with the Court’s directive. Instead, he filed a procedurally improper motion seeking reconsideration of the Court’s July 2022 Order denying his motion for reconsideration. Despite multiple Court  Orders requiring that he adhere to his bar admission conditions, respondent’s non-compliance with his conditions has continued, unabated.

Additionally, respondent violated RPC 8.1(b) by altogether failing to cooperate with the OAE in two respects.

First, between March and May 2023, respondent failed to comply with the OAE’s multiple letters requiring that he submit a written explanation for his failure to adhere to his bar admission conditions. Similarly, during that same timeframe, respondent failed to appear for two scheduled demand interviews. Other than acknowledging his receipt of one of the OAE’s letters and promising to reply “as soon as possible,” respondent refused to make any attempt to comply with the OAE’s repeated efforts to investigate his misconduct.

Second, respondent failed to file an answer to the formal ethics complaint, thus, allowing this matter to proceed as a default.

In sum, we find that respondent violated RPC 3.4(c), RPC 8.1(b) (two instances), and RPC 8.4(d). The sole issue left for our determination is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s misconduct.

Quantum 

In conclusion, based on respondent’s protracted and ongoing failure to adhere to the conditions of his bar admission, his refusal to participate in the disciplinary process, and his demonstrated disinterest in maintaining his law license, we determine that a three-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.

Additionally, we recommend that the Court impose the condition that, prior to reinstatement, respondent fully demonstrate his compliance with the conditions placed upon his law license, as set forth in the Court’s December 7, 2021 Order. Finally, given his persistent refusal to comply with the conditions of his bar admission, we recommend that the Court require respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, pursuant to R. 1:20-16(b).

(Mike Frisch)