A Haven For Unethical Attorneys

No jurisdiction in the United States treats mishandling of entrusted funds – a core ethical responsibility – as leniently as New Jersey.

From a recent letter opinion of the Disciplinary Review Board

Respondent admitted that his misconduct resulted in the invasion of client funds. Generally, a reprimand is imposed for negligent misappropriation of client funds, even when accompanied by other, non-serious infractions, such as recordkeeping deficiencies, commingling, and failure to promptly deliver funds to clients.

So far, so bad

Although a reprimand might otherwise be sufficient to address respondent’s misconduct in this matter, we note that he has been the subject of prior discipline. Specifically, on July 27, 2004, respondent received a three-month suspension for his violations of RPC 1.5 and Rule 1:21-7 (unreasonable fee), RPC 1.7(a) (conflict of interest), RPC 1.8(a) (prohibited transaction with client), RPC 1.8 financial assistance to client in connection with litigation), RPC 3.3(a)(1) (false statement of material fact to a tribunal), RPC 3.4(b) (counseling or assisting a witness to testify falsely), RPC 8.1 (a) (misrepresentation in disciplinary matter), RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and RPC 1.15(d) (recordkeeping) in connection with a personal injury action. In re Giorgi, 180 N.J. 525 (2004).

Thus, the Board. considered, in aggravation, respondent’s failure to learn from past mistakes, some of which also included recordkeeping violations. For that reason, combined with his egregious and intentional misuse of his attorney trust account in connection with his personal business interests, the Board determined that respondent’s misconduct warrants a censure.

Wow. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed. 

The case is In re Giorgi and can be accessed here. (Mike Frisch)