Censure For “Vanished” Attorney

A censure has been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court for violations described by the Disciplinary Review Board

In October 2022, Jere Hopkins-Doerr retained respondent to (1) provide her with legal advice concerning the formation of a special needs trust for her sister, and (2) prepare an installment contract of sale to allow the tenants of an estate’s property to purchase the property.

In February 2023, respondent prepared the special needs trust, albeit by utilizing a trust and will online service. However, he admittedly failed to prepare the installment contract and, for approximately seven months, failed to communicate with Hopkins-Doerr regarding his progress in preparing the contract for which he was retained. During that time, Hopkins-Doerr sent respondent numerous e-mails, certified mailings, and contacted him via telephone, to no avail. According to Hopkins-Doerr, respondent and his Mahwah law office had “vanished.”

Explanation

In his October 16, 2023 written reply to the grievance, respondent admitted he had failed to communicate with Hopkins-Doerr and failed to work on the installment contract, attributing his failures to a personal crisis. During the seven months, he admittedly failed to inform Hopkins-Doerr that he was unable to complete work on her matter.

After providing the DEC investigator with his October 16, 2023 written reply, respondent ceased further communication with the investigator and failed to provide any information about his personal crisis. Indeed, between January 4 and March 13, 2024, the DEC investigator attempted to contact respondent via telephone at least nine times, with no reply. Furthermore, during the same time period, the DEC investigator sent respondent nine e-mails requesting that he answer questions and provide information about his representation of Hopkins-Doerr. Respondent failed to reply. Additionally, on February 1, 2024, the DEC investigator sent a certified letter to respondent requesting that he contact the investigator. Respondent again failed to reply.

Conclusion

On balance, weighing respondent’s lack of prior discipline against his refusal to participate in the disciplinary process and the default status of this matter, we determine that a censure is the appropriate quantum of discipline to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.

Moreover, based on respondent’s admitted failure to perform any work pertaining to the installment contract, we recommend that he be required to (1) disgorge the fee he charged his client for that aspect of the representation, (2) disgorge any funds he is holding related to the sale of the estate property, and (3) release any documentation he possesses concerning the installment contract and trust investments.

(Mike Frisch)