In the Matter of Neil M. Cohen, an Attorney at Law
100 A.3d 529
N.J.2014Background
- Neil M. Cohen, a New Jersey attorney and former Assemblyman, was found to have accessed and printed sexually explicit images, including child pornography, on a state-issued receptionist computer and his private law-office computer.
- Police recovered 34 images from office and law-office computers; 19 images from his law office depicted girls under sixteen.
- Cohen pleaded guilty to second-degree endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)(5)(a)), was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, required to comply with Megan’s Law, and prohibited from Internet use.
- He was temporarily suspended from the bar on January 13, 2011; the DRB later recommended a two-year prospective suspension (majority), with dissenters favoring disbarment.
- The Supreme Court treated the criminal conviction as conclusive evidence of professional misconduct under Rule 1:20-13(c) and evaluated the appropriate quantum of discipline in light of the gravity of child-exploitation offenses and mitigating factors (mental-health history, prior abuse, treatment cooperation).
- The Court imposed an indeterminate suspension under Rule 1:20-15A(a)(2), barred Cohen from seeking reinstatement for five years from his temporary suspension date, and required rigorous proof of fitness for readmission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the guilty plea constitute conclusive evidence of professional misconduct? | OAE: Yes; Rule 1:20-13(c) makes conviction conclusive in disciplinary proceedings. | Cohen: No contest to plea but sought mitigation and retroactive application of suspension. | Guilty plea is conclusive evidence; it establishes violation of RPC 8.4(b). |
| What quantum of discipline is appropriate for possession/printing of child pornography? | OAE: Severe discipline up to disbarment given harm to victims and public trust. | Cohen: Mitigating factors (mental illness, history of abuse, treatment) warrant less than disbarment, possible suspension. | Imposed indeterminate suspension — most severe suspension short of disbarment — reflecting seriousness and need for public confidence. |
| Should suspension be retroactive to the temporary suspension date? | Cohen: Yes, sought retroactive application to January 13, 2011. | OAE: Proposed prospective discipline (DRB majority prescribed two-year prospective suspension). | Court barred seeking reinstatement for five years from the temporary suspension date; required rigorous fitness proof — effectively ties relief to the earlier date for reinstatement timing. |
| What role do mitigating factors (mental illness, past abuse, treatment) play in discipline? | Cohen: Such factors reduce culpability and support suspension rather than disbarment. | OAE: Mitigation considered but does not outweigh gravity; stricter discipline appropriate. | Court considered mitigation, but concluded severity of offense mandates indeterminate suspension with five-year minimum before seeking readmission. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lunetta, 118 N.J. 443 (factors for disciplinary sanction include nature/severity of crime and mitigating conduct)
- In re Burak, 208 N.J. 484 (disbarment for extensive possession, trading, and violent child-pornography images)
- In re Sosnowski, 197 N.J. 23 (disbarment where attorney possessed images and used hidden cameras on children)
- In re McBroom, 158 N.J. 258 (two-year suspension and proof of psychiatric fitness required after federal child-pornography conviction)
- In re Peck, 177 N.J. 249 (one-year suspension tied to prison term for possession-related federal conviction)
- In re Templeton, 99 N.J. 365 (standard for disbarment when confidence in ability to practice is destroyed)
- In re Frye, 217 N.J. 438 (disbarment for sexual misconduct with a child and failure to notify OAE of conviction)
- In re Witherspoon, 203 N.J. 343 (discipline aims to preserve public confidence in the bar)