“Numerous, Profound Aggravating Factors”
The New Jersey Supreme Court has imposed a one-year suspension and until further court order of a previously-disciplined attorney.
From the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board
In our view, based on precedent, respondent’s utter failure to advance his client’s interests in the Jeter matter, in conjunction with his subsequent submission of a forged affidavit to his adversary, warrants at least a three-month suspension. His additional misconduct – namely, his ongoing failure to rectify recordkeeping violations, despite the Court’s Order in Davis III imposing a censure and monitoring conditions – also warrants the imposition of a term of suspension. To craft the appropriate discipline, however, we must consider both mitigating and aggravating factors applicable in both matters.
We accord minimal weight to the mitigating factors respondent offered. At the time of his wife’s passing, Jeter’s workers’ compensation matter had already lingered for three years and his misconduct surrounding Affidavit 1 and Affidavit 2 occurred more than three years thereafter. Respondent failed to produce any evidence that the personal events in his life impacted his ability to practice law; to the contrary, in his testimony, he insisted they did not. Furthermore, because of his vague testimony surrounding his medical conditions and hospitalizations, we have no information as to when those occurred and, thus, cannot determine their impact on Jeter’s matter.
There are numerous, profound, aggravating factors. First, we accord significant weight to respondent’s failure to learn from his past mistakes. The Court has signaled an inclination toward progressive discipline and stern treatment of repeat offenders. In such scenarios enhanced discipline is appropriate. See In re Kantor, 180 N.J. 226 (2004) (disbarment for abandonment of clients and repeated failure to cooperate with the disciplinary system). These consolidated matters represent respondent fourth and fifth disciplinary matter before us. In 2007, in Davis I, respondent received a reprimand, on a motion for reciprocal discipline, for practicing law while ineligible and for making misrepresentations to the court, his adversary, and the Pennsylvania – misconduct remarkably similar to the instant matter. In 2012, in connection with Davis II, he received a second reprimand for failing to promptly turnover a client file following the termination of the representation. And, in 2020, in Davis III, he was censured for recordkeeping violations and failing to cooperate with the OAE’s investigation – conduct similar to the instant misconduct.
Clearly, respondent has not learned from his past contacts with the disciplinary system, nor used those prior experiences as a foundation for reform. See In re Zeitler, 182 N.J. 389, 398 (2005) (“[d]espite having received numerous opportunities to reform himself, respondent has continued to display disregard, indeed contempt, for our disciplinary rules and our ethics system).
Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more textbook case of an attorney’s failure to learn from prior misconduct than this matter – a respondent who comes before us for many of the same RPC violations for which he already has been disciplined. Further, just over four years ago in Davis III, the Court disciplined him for recordkeeping deficiencies, ordered ongoing monitoring, and for four years, he has doggedly refused to conform his books to R. 1:21-6. Making matters worse, the dishonest conduct that was present in Davis I continued in in the matters currently before us.
Conclusion
On balance, when considering the totality of respondent’s misconduct across both matters, along with the presence of serious aggravating factors, we determine that a one-year suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline to protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar.
(Mike Frisch )