Suspension For Assault Conviction

The New Jersey Supreme Court has suspended an attorney for three months on findings of misconduct recited by the Disciplinary Review Board

On October 12, 2023, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Criminal Division, respondent appeared before the Honorable David J. Labib, J.S.C., and entered a guilty plea to one count of simple assault, a disorderly persons offense, in violation of N.J.S.A 2C:12-1(a).1 In exchange for his guilty plea, the prosecution recommended that respondent be admitted to the pretrial intervention (PTI) program for a term of twelve months. The facts underlying the criminal offense, which stem from an act of domestic violence, are as follows.

According to the affidavit of probable cause, on February 16, 2023, officers of the Mahwah police department responded to a report of domestic violence, including property damage, at the residence of respondent’s girlfriend, Jane Doe (J.D.). Upon arrival, patrol officers spoke with J.D.; however, respondent was no longer at the residence.

According to the affidavit, J.D. alleged that a verbal argument had turned physical and she complained of head pain. The reporting officer observed visible signs of injuries, including abrasions and redness on the front of her neck, noting that they observed “visible signs of injuries on the victim from being strangled by the suspect that fled the scene.”

Consequently, respondent was charged with second-degree aggravated assault, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(13); third-degree criminal mischief, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(a)(1); and third-degree terroristic threats, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(b).

On February 17, 2023, J.D. obtained a TRO against respondent. On March 1, 2023, prior to the scheduled final restraining order hearing date, J.D. dismissed the TRO.

Respondent pled guilty to simple assault

Here, respondent’s plea was loosely based on the statute for simple assault, rather than his actual conduct. Thus, we looked beyond the plea hearing transcript to determine the appropriate quantum of discipline. Just as we did in Gallo and Buckley, we considered information beyond respondent’s “limited admissions” made in court to understand the “nature and context of [respondent’s] misconduct.” Id. at 4 (quoting Gallo, 178 N.J. at 120-121). In this case, the affidavit of probable cause contained additional relevant facts, based not solely on the victim’s statement, but rather on the independent observations made by the police officers who responded in connection with respondent’s assaultive behavior. The officers reported that they observed “visible signs of injuries on the victim from being strangled by the suspect that fled the scene.”

Here, respondent’s misconduct is most like the attorneys in Fulford and Hyderally, who both received three-month suspensions. Specifically, similar to both matters, respondent pleaded guilty to simple assault for an act of domestic violence. Additionally, like Fulford, respondent has no prior discipline. Further, like the attorney in Pagliara, respondent was admitted into PTI and ordered to attend therapy. Accordingly, we determine that a three-month suspension is the baseline discipline for respondent’s misconduct.

The Board noted that Respondent had no prior discipline in ten years of practice. (Mike Frisch)