When You Pay Through J-Pay

The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded an attorney for misconduct described by the Disciplinary Review Board

Respondent served as a pool attorney for the Office of Parental Representation (the OPR), a division of the Office of the Public Defender (the OPD). On May 31, 2022, the OAE docketed a referral from the New Jersey Department of Corrections (the NJDOC), Northern State Prison, Special Investigations Division (the NSP/SID), regarding inappropriate contact between respondent and an inmate.

Specifically, the NSP/SID reported that, on February 11, 2022, respondent met with inmate A.A. for more than an hour in a private attorney client room and, at the conclusion of the meeting, as respondent moved toward the door to leave, A.A. approached her from behind and used both hands to grab her buttocks. The room was equipped with video surveillance, but no audio was recorded or transmitted. Respondent did not report the contact to prison officials.

Subsequently, the NSP/SID investigated and determined that respondent was in a romantic relationship with A.A. Specifically, the NSP/SID discovered letters and electronic mail between respondent and A.A., sent via J-Pay, that were romantic in nature, including photographs and videos of respondent in various stages of undress. Further, A.A.’s J-Pay and letters revealed that respondent corresponded with him under the alias “Jaelya Adamez.” Additionally, a review of A.A.’s recorded telephone calls revealed that respondent’s telephone number, falsely listed as an aunt, was dialed numerous times by A.A.

On February 23, 2022, the NSP/SID interviewed respondent about the incident. During that interview, she denied having a romantic relationship with A.A. and denied knowledge of J-Pay. Further, when confronted by the NSP/SID with the J-Pay e-mails and other communications between her and A.A., she ended the interview. Subsequently, she was banned from entering all NJDOC institutions. Thereafter, the NSP/SID referred the matter to the OAE.

Respondent was appointed to handle a custody matter

During a November 14, 2022 demand interview with the OAE, respondent admitted that her relationship with A.A. became romantic in 2021. Despite being in a romantic relationship with A.A., she admittedly accepted the subsequent representation through the OPR.

On January 4, 2022, respondent sent A.A. a letter at the NSP. In that letter, respondent asked him numerous personal questions, including where he lived, his religious beliefs, his sexual preferences, and his expectations if the two lived together. The next day, on January 5, 2022, she appeared on A.A.’s behalf in family court for a compliance hearing. Thereafter, on January 7, 2022, she sent him two pictures of herself, via J-Pay.

On February 4, 2022, respondent again sent A.A., via J-Pay, two pictures of herself wearing what appeared to be a bra. On February 9, 2022, she sent him a picture of her vehicle. That same date, she submitted a request to the NSP to meet with A.A. in the facility’s attorney-client room. On February 11, 2022, as detailed above, she met with A.A.

On February 15, 2022, respondent was banned from entering all institutions within the NJDOC, effective immediately, pending the outcome of the NSP/SID investigation. She did not inform the OPR of her ban from NJDOC facilities.

A risk worth taking?

Typically, the discipline imposed on attorneys who engage in improper personal relationships with a client, in violation of RPC 1.7(a)(2), is a reprimand.

After a survey of New Jersey sanctions for sex with a client

There is no doubt that respondent’s misconduct is less serious than that of the attorneys who engaged in sexual relationships with their clients. Further, we note that an attorney’s sexual relationship with a client is not per se unethical. Rather, the relative positions of the parties must be scrutinized to ascertain whether the relationship was prohibited. In re Liebowitz, 104 N.J. 175 (1985).

In our view, respondent’s misconduct closely resembles that of the admonished attorney in Ouda, who engaged in a brief sexual relationship with his client six months after the representation began. In that matter, we concluded that there was no clear and convincing evidence that the client had not consented to the relationship or was so emotionally vulnerable that she was unable to freely consent to it. In the Matter of Peter A. Ouda, DRB 13-124, at 6. Nevertheless, we concluded that a conflict of interest arose, in violation of RPC 1.7(a)(2) and RPC 8.4(a), when Ouda continued to represent the client in her malpractice action after the relationship had ended, despite the significant risk that the representation would be materially limited by Ouda’s own personal interests. Id. at 7. In imposing only an admonition, we weighed, in mitigation, the attorney’s lack of prior discipline in his twenty-three years at the bar and that the client had not been harmed by his conduct. Id. at 5, 7.

Here, like in Ouda, it appears that respondent’s romantic relationship with A.A. was consensual, as the record does not establish any evidence of coercion or unwanted advances by respondent. Indeed, it was A.A. who initiated physical contact with respondent during the February 11, 2022 attorney-client visit. Additionally, like Ouda, respondent’s client was not adversely affected by the relationship. Also like Ouda, respondent has no prior discipline in her eleven years at the bar. Thus, standing alone, respondent’s violation of RPC 1.7(a)(2) could be met with an admonition. However, respondent also engaged in other serious misconduct by (1) misrepresenting her relationship to the NSP/SID investigators, (2) corresponding with A.A. under a false alias to conceal her identity as his attorney, and (3) failing to disclose both her relationship and the NJDOC ban to the OPR. In our view, respondent’s misrepresentations, though serious, were limited in nature and, thus, more similar to the misconduct of the attorney in Mehta, who was reprimanded for fabricating a letter to a former client and submitting it to the disciplinary authorities. In determining that a reprimand was 15 the appropriate quantum of discipline in that matter, we considered Mehta’s unblemished career and that he had stipulated to his misconduct.

We do not, however, view respondent’s misrepresentations as so limited to warrant an admonition.

(Mike Frisch)