Misappropriation Sufficient To Impose Disbarment

The New Jersey Supreme Court has disbarred an attorney  based on multiple sanctions imposed elsewhere as described by the Disciplinary Review Board

Effective March 2, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida permanently suspended respondent from the practice of law in connection with her mishandling of thirty-eight bankruptcy cases underlying this matter, spanning almost a decade, in which she exhibited a pattern of filing cases and then “immediately abandoning them,” without paying the filing fee or submitting the required documents.

Additionally, effective April 11, 2020, the Supreme Court of Florida imposed a “disciplinary revocation” of respondent’s admission to the Florida bar in connection with her knowing misappropriation of entrusted funds underlying this matter. In re Wilson, 2020 Fla. LEXIS 470 (Fla. 2020).3

Moreover, effective October 27, 2020, the United States Department of Justice, Board of Immigration Appeals, disbarred respondent “from practice before the Board of Immigration Appeals, the [United States] Immigration Courts, and the [United States] Department of Homeland Security,” based on her knowing misappropriation of entrusted funds underlying her disciplinary revocation in Florida.

Finally, effective November 13, 2023, our Court temporarily suspended respondent in connection with her failure to cooperate with the OAE’s investigation underlying this matter. In re Wilson, 256 N.J. 1 (2023).

Conclusion based on Florida revocation

In sum, based on respondent’s protracted scheme to knowingly misappropriate entrusted funds, disbarment is the only appropriate sanction, pursuant to the principles of Wilson and Hollendonner. Therefore, we need not address the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s additional, serious ethics violations.

(Mike Frisch)