“Multiple Acts Of Dishonesty” Draw Censure
The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured an attorney for misconduct described in a letter decision of the Disciplinary Review Board
The Disciplinary Review Board (the Board) has reviewed the motion for discipline by consent (censure or such lesser discipline as the Board may deem appropriate) filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (the OAE) in this matter, pursuant to R. 1:20-10(b). Following a review of the record, the Board granted the motion and determined to impose a censure for respondent’s violation of RPC 3.3(a)(1) (two instances – knowingly making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal); RPC 8.1(a) (two instances – knowingly making a false statement of material fact to disciplinary authorities); RPC 8.4(c) (two instances – engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
However, for the reasons set forth below, the Board determined to dismiss the charges that respondent violated RPC 3.3(a)(1), RPC 8.1(a), and RPC 8.4(c) in connection with the filing of his amended petition for reinstatement.
Respondent had been suspended for three months in 2022
Respondent’s misconduct in the instant matter arises out of his misrepresentations to disciplinary authorities concerning his purported compliance with R. 1:20-20 in connection with his term of suspension underlying Pepsny I. In relevant part, R. 1:20-20(b)(5) requires a suspended attorney to “cease to use any bank accounts or checks on which the attorney’s name appears as a lawyer or attorney-at-law or in connection with the words ‘law office.’”
Misconduct and sanction
Here, the Board observed that, like Jones, respondent should have had a heightened awareness of his obligations to comply with the Court Rules and the Rules of Professional Conduct, considering that his misconduct in this matter occurred on the heels of having faced potential disbarment for misappropriation underlying Pepsny I. However, less than a week after his certified statement to the OAE, the Board, and the Court that he would not use his attorney accounts while suspended, as R. 1:20-20(b)(5) requires, he began to systematically and improperly use his [Attorney Business Account] to make online payments, deposit previously earned legal fees, and issue checks identifying him as a lawyer to not only himself, but also medical providers and a beauty salon. In contrast to Jones, who appeared to have notified the Florida law firm of his suspended status in New Jersey, respondent openly and falsely held himself out as an attorney with an active law license. Additionally, unlike Jones, who did not engage in any overt acts of dishonesty towards disciplinary authorities, respondent repeatedly concealed his failure to comply with R. 1:20-20 from the OAE, the Board, and the Court.
As the Board observed in Jones and in Stolz, a reprimand could have been the appropriate quantum of discipline in this matter had respondent’s conduct been limited to his failure to comply with R. 1:20-20 while suspended. However, considering that his failure to comply with that Rule was compounded by his multiple acts of dishonesty towards disciplinary authorities and the Court, the Board determined that a censure is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.
(Mike Frisch)