32 A.3d 1117
N.J.2011Background
- Respondent Ty Hyderally displayed the New Jersey Supreme Court Certified Attorney seal on his website while not certified in any designated area under Rule 1:39.
- The seal appeared on sixteen pages of respondent’s site for more than two years, including biographical pages for staff and associates who were not certified.
- The display was added by a California website designer (not an attorney) retained by respondent in 2005 and remained until after a grievance in 2007.
- Respondent claimed he did not direct the seal’s inclusion, was unaware of it, and directed removal when notified of the grievance.
- The District Ethics Committee recommended a reprimand for failing to monitor advertising; the Disciplinary Review Board dismissed the complaint, citing lack of intent and inadvertent placement.
- The Court sua sponte reviewed the DRB decision and ultimately dismissed the complaint for lack of clear and convincing evidence of intentional dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did respondent violate RPC 8.4(c)? | OAE: display lasted two years; constitutive misrepresentation; not cured by removal. | Hyderally: no intentional deception; display inadvertent; no benefit required. | No clear and convincing evidence of intentional misconduct; no RPC 8.4(c) violation. |
| Does removal after notice cure potential RPC 8.4(c) violation? | Display occurred for two years; continued display could be actionable despite removal. | Removal promptly upon notice shows lack of ongoing misrepresentation and cure. | Cure by removal acknowledged; no basis for discipline. |
| Is evidence of benefit required to find a violation of RPC 8.4(c)? | Any use of misleading symbol constitutes deceit even absent financial gain. | Need not show benefit; focus on intent to mislead. | Court held absence of clear intent to deceive; no violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prothro, 208 N.J. 340 (2011) (intent required for RPC 8.4(c) violations)
- In re Trustan, 202 N.J. 4 (2010) (knowingly false statements to third party; evidence of intent)
- In re Stahl, 198 N.J. 507 (2009) (knowingly false statements to a law tribunal)
- In re Marshall, 196 N.J. 524 (2008) (assistance in illegal or fraudulent conduct; false statements)
- In re Tan, 188 N.J. 389 (2006) (false statements on bar application)
- In re Uffelman, 200 N.J. 260 (2009) (discipline may be imposed despite absence of RPC 8.4(e) finding)
- In re Seelig, 180 N.J. 234 (2004) (good faith belief can negate intent to deceive)
- In re Power, 171 N.J. 470 (2002) (discussed RPC 7.1 advertising issues)
- In re Sharp, 157 N.J. 27 (1999) (advertising misconduct standards)