Monday, February 13, 2017

The Land Of Many Chances

An attorney with a prior history of sanctions was censured by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The court followed the recommendation of its Disciplinary Review Board finding misconduct in two client matters

...respondent’s ethics history demonstrates that he has not learned from prior, similar mistakes. This is the third disciplinary proceeding involving respondent’s failure to cooperate with ethics authorities. Therefore, an admonition is insufficient to address his otherwise minor misconduct here.  On that basis alone, a reprimand is warranted.

When we add respondent's prior final discipline to the mix, enhanced discipline is warranted: an October 2002 admonition; a November 2011 reprimand; an April 2013 reprimand; a February 2014 three-month suspension; and a May 2016 censure.

Given respondent’s failure to learn from his past mistakes, and his significant disciplinary history, we determine to impose a censure.

 When admonition is insufficient, go with a censure. (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink


Are there any studies that compare and contrast how tough a particular jurisdiction is in attorney disciplinary cases? I get the sense NJ is relatively lenient but that is purely anecdotal.

Posted by: Michael McCabe | Feb 14, 2017 7:18:09 AM

Post a comment