Censured

An attorney admitted in 2016 was censured by the New Jersey Supreme Court for practicing while administrately suspended as described by the Disciplinary Review Board

During his period of ineligibility, respondent represented a juvenile in a criminal matter pending before the Honorable Phillip J. Degnan, J.S.C. Specifically, on July 5, 2022, respondent advised Judge Degnan’s chambers that “he had recently discovered an issue with his license that prevented him from appearing that date,” and requested an adjournment, which Judge Degnan granted. On July 13, 2022, respondent requested another adjournment in the same matter, which also was granted.

During a July 21, 2022 conference call before Judge Degnan, respondent entered an appearance in the juvenile matter, despite his administrative ineligibility. During that conference, Judge Degnan asked respondent whether the issues with his license had been resolved. According to the complaint, respondent represented that his “licensing issues either had been resolved or were going to be resolved in short order.” Respondent then requested another adjournment.

That same date, Judge Degnan confirmed that respondent remained ineligible to practice law and advised respondent’s client of the same.

On August 23, 2022, respondent regained his eligibility to practice law after making a payment to the Fund. However, on September 12, 2022, the Court again declared respondent administratively ineligible to practice law for his failure to register his IOLTA account.

There were also recordkeeping issues

Following a review of the record, we find that the facts set forth in the complaint support most, but not all, of the charges of unethical conduct. Respondent’s failure to file an answer to the complaint is deemed an admission that the allegations of the complaint are true and that they provide a sufficient basis for the imposition of discipline. R. 1:20-4(f)(1). Notwithstanding that Rule, each charge in the complaint must be supported by sufficient facts for us to determine that unethical conduct has occurred.

The record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent violated RPC 1.15(d) by failing to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of R. 1:21-6 in numerous respects. Specifically, the OAE’s audit revealed that respondent failed to; (2) properly designate his ATA and ABA; (3) maintain ATA and ABA receipts and disbursement journals; (4) maintain a client ledger card identifying law firm funds for bank charges; (5) maintain monthly, threeway reconciliations and running checkbook balance; and (6) maintain ATA and ABA records for a period of seven years. Further, respondent made improper, electronic transfers to his ATA. Moreover, between April and July 12, 2022, in connection with his law practice, respondent failed to maintain an ATA and ABA.

Sanction

On balance, consistent with disciplinary precedent and considering that respondent allowed this matter to proceed as a default, we conclude that a censure is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar. Further, we recommend that the Court impose the conditions that respondent submit proof to the OAE, within thirty days of the Court’s disciplinary Order, that he (1) corrected his recordkeeping deficiencies, and (2) updated his firm’s financial institution information.

(Mike Frisch)