A Danger To The Public
The New Jersey Supreme Court has ordered a three-year retroactive suspension for conduct described by the Disciplinary Review Board
In 2012, respondent was convicted of DWI, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:450. Because this conviction represented his sixth DWI conviction, the trial court ordered that his driver’s license be suspended for ten years.
Eight years later, on December 27, 2018, while his driver’s license remained suspended, respondent arranged for his friend to purchase a vehicle, on respondent’s behalf, for respondent to operate. During the September 23, 2022 plea hearing underlying this matter, respondent admitted under oath that, in order to circumvent his license suspension, he arranged for his friend to “fraudulently register” and insure the vehicle under the friend’s name and address. He also conceded that “this scheme was entirely [his] idea” and that he never informed his friend of his license suspension. Rather, he provided “some other reason” to his friend for directing him to fraudulently insure and register the vehicle.
Less than two years later, on the night of November 13, 2020, respondent, while driving the fraudulently registered and insured vehicle, drove into the oncoming traffic lane and struck another vehicle, head on, at approximately fifty miles per hour. Following the collision, police and paramedics arrived at the scene of the accident and transported the unresponsive victim to a hospital, where he later died. Meanwhile, respondent told one of the police officers on scene that he “went to turn and just hit” the victim’s vehicle while “going the wrong way apparently.” While obtaining respondent’s information, the officer recognized him from “two separate alcohol related calls that [had] occurred at his residence last year.” The officer then arranged for him to undergo lab testing, which revealed no drugs or alcohol in his system.
On March 18, 2021, a Somerset County Grand Jury indicted respondent for (1) second-degree vehicular homicide; (2) third-degree causing death while driving with a suspended license; (3) second-degree insurance fraud; (4) third-degree vehicle title fraud; and (5) fourth-degree operating a motor vehicle 3 knowing that his license had remained suspended for a second or subsequent DWI conviction. Respondent failed to notify the OAE of his criminal indictment, as R. 1:20-13(a)(1) requires. Rather, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General notified the OAE of the indictment.
On September 23, 2022, respondent appeared before the Honorable Peter J. Tober, P.J.Cr., and pleaded guilty as charged, except that the prosecution had agreed to amend the second-degree insurance fraud charge to third-degree insurance fraud. Additionally, respondent pleaded guilty to reckless driving, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-96, and driving with a suspended license, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:3-40.
Sanction
In our view, respondent’s conduct clearly was more egregious than that of Howard, whose conviction for death by auto did not result from any visual impairment. By contrast, respondent’s conviction for second-degree vehicular homicide stemmed from his decision to drive at night, knowing that he had a significant visual impairment that prevented him from safely operating a vehicle. Moreover, unlike Howard, respondent was operating a fraudulently registered and insured vehicle with a license that had been suspended following his sixth conviction for DWI. Further, in contrast to Howard, respondent’s conduct resulted in his sixth conviction for driving with a suspended license, and his actions placed his friend in criminal jeopardy, under false pretenses. Finally, Howard received a three-month disciplinary suspension and a criminal 16 sentence of probation because, at the time of her offense, in 1989, her actions did not constitute a second-degree crime. Conversely, respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree vehicular homicide, among other serious criminal offenses, and received a five-year sentence of incarceration, subject to the No Early Release Act.
And
Here, respondent also committed insurance fraud and vehicle title fraud, through his friend, in order to circumvent his long-term driver’s license suspension as a result of his lengthy history of committing DWIs. No reported New Jersey disciplinary cases have addressed vehicle title fraud or insurance 19 fraud under circumstances where an attorney attempted to criminally evade the restrictions placed upon his driver’s license. However, generally, attorneys who have been found guilty of insurance fraud have received discipline ranging from a short-term of suspension to disbarment, depending on the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors.
Conclusion
In conclusion, respondent’s actions constituted a complete indifference to the safety of the public, the liberty interests of his friend, and the restrictions imposed upon his driver’s license stemming from his serious history of committing DWIs and driving with a suspended license. Respondent not only placed his friend in criminal jeopardy, but he also, tragically, caused the death of an innocent motorist while knowingly operating a fraudulently registered and insured vehicle with a suspended license and a serious visual impairment. Given the clear danger that respondent poses to the public, and consistent with disciplinary precedent, we determine that a three-year suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar.
Prior to his incarceration, he was in Bedminster. (Mike Frisch)