Letter Threats Draw Letter Of Admonition
A letter of admonition issued by the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board
Specifically, N.S. retained you to represent her in connection with settlement negotiations with E.M., who allegedly had assaulted her while both were in Germany. Pursuant to your written fee agreement, the representation was limited to “settlement negotiations in a matter where [E.M.] is the defendant,” but that “[n]o filing of a lawsuit is contemplated by this agreement.” Your fee was contingent on the outcome of the matter. E.M. was represented by Lisa B. Shelkrot, Esq., the grievant in this matter.
On November 15, 2023, you sent a letter to Shelkrot regarding the alleged assault, recounting that E.M. had assaulted N.S. in her apartment and, further, that E.M. was in possession of an “improperly recorded video of the assault.” You also informed Shelkrot that N.S. intended to report the assault by E.M., who was on probation in Vermont at the time of the alleged assault, to the Vermont probation authorities, and to file a federal lawsuit. However, you maintained that, if E.M. agreed to a monetary settlement, N.S. would not report the assault to the Vermont probation authorities. You conceded that, pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 200, a violation of probation can result in arrest, revocation of probation, and even incarceration.
On January 21, 2024, you sent a second letter to Shelkrot stating that her failure to address the civil matter left N.S. with no choice but to report E.M.’s behavior to the probation authorities and to file a civil action against him. You concluded your letter by stating “[s]hould you have any intention of resolving the matter, we ask that you provide an immediate response.”
Three days later, on January 24, 2024, you informed N.S. that you were terminating the attorney-client relationship. At the time you withdrew from the representation, no settlement had been reached between N.S. and E.M.
Subsequently, you conceded that both of your letters to Shelkrot were intended to elicit settlement negotiations. You also admitted that, at the time of your November 15, 2023 letter, you believed N.S. already had reported E.M.’s conduct to the probation authorities. None of your communications to Shelkrot, however, revealed that N.S. already had reported the assault to the authorities.
The Board found that you violated RPC 3.4(g) by twice informing Shelkrot that your client intended to report E.M., who was on probation, to the criminal authorities and to file a civil action against him, unless a satisfactory financial settlement could be reached. Further, you conceded that your letters to Shelkrot were intended to elicit settlement negotiations. Next, you violated RPC 8.4(c) by making those representations to Shelkrot, despite your knowledge that your client already had notified the probation authorities months earlier.
In imposing only an admonition, the Board accorded considerable mitigating weight to your unblemished forty-two-year career at the bar. In addition, the Board considered your full cooperation with the OAE’s investigation and your decision to enter into a stipulation of discipline on consent, thereby accepting responsibility for your misconduct and conserving disciplinary resources.
(Mike Frisch)