In re Warhaftig case brief summary
106 N.J. 529, 524 A.2d 398 (1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Petitioner ethics committee requested an order to show cause why respondent attorney should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, following the recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board (New Jersey), that respondent be publicly reprimanded for invading trust account funds, concluding that respondent had engaged in unethical conduct, but that knowing misappropriation had not been established by clear and convincing evidence.
OVERVIEW: After the Disciplinary Review Board recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for invading trust account funds, after concluding that he had engaged in unethical conduct, but that knowing misappropriation had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, petitioner ethics committed requested an order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined.
HOLDING:
The court declined to adopt the recommendation of a public reprimanded and ordered that he be disbarred, holding that respondent's conduct clearly constituted knowing misappropriation of client trust account funds and that the existence of mitigating factors were to be given little weight.
ANALYSIS:
Respondent's subjective intent to borrow rather than to steal the funds was irrelevant to the determination of the appropriate discipline. Also, being a member of the bar in good standing, the fact that he discontinued the misconduct in the three years since the audit occurred, his candor in admitting his wrongful conduct, and the fact that the misappropriation was the product of severe personal and financial hardship, could not reduce the application of the strictest discipline for misappropriation.
OUTCOME: The court declined to adopt the recommendation that respondent attorney be publicly reprimanded and ordered that he be disbarred, holding that respondent's conduct clearly constituted knowing misappropriation of client trust account funds and that the existence of mitigating factors were to be given little weight, because the strictest discipline was to be applied in misappropriation cases.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
106 N.J. 529, 524 A.2d 398 (1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Petitioner ethics committee requested an order to show cause why respondent attorney should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, following the recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board (New Jersey), that respondent be publicly reprimanded for invading trust account funds, concluding that respondent had engaged in unethical conduct, but that knowing misappropriation had not been established by clear and convincing evidence.
OVERVIEW: After the Disciplinary Review Board recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for invading trust account funds, after concluding that he had engaged in unethical conduct, but that knowing misappropriation had not been established by clear and convincing evidence, petitioner ethics committed requested an order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined.
HOLDING:
The court declined to adopt the recommendation of a public reprimanded and ordered that he be disbarred, holding that respondent's conduct clearly constituted knowing misappropriation of client trust account funds and that the existence of mitigating factors were to be given little weight.
ANALYSIS:
Respondent's subjective intent to borrow rather than to steal the funds was irrelevant to the determination of the appropriate discipline. Also, being a member of the bar in good standing, the fact that he discontinued the misconduct in the three years since the audit occurred, his candor in admitting his wrongful conduct, and the fact that the misappropriation was the product of severe personal and financial hardship, could not reduce the application of the strictest discipline for misappropriation.
OUTCOME: The court declined to adopt the recommendation that respondent attorney be publicly reprimanded and ordered that he be disbarred, holding that respondent's conduct clearly constituted knowing misappropriation of client trust account funds and that the existence of mitigating factors were to be given little weight, because the strictest discipline was to be applied in misappropriation cases.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment