98 A.3d 1184
N.J.2014Background
- Peter J. Cammarano III, admitted 2002, served as Hoboken councilman and ran for mayor in 2009; no prior disciplinary history.
- During the 2009 mayoral campaign and shortly after election, Cammarano met repeatedly with a cooperating witness posing as a developer (Solomon Dwek) and accepted $25,000 in cash in exchange for promises of confidential campaign contributions and preferential treatment on zoning/development matters.
- Cammarano pled guilty (April 20, 2010) to conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by extortion under color of official right (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)); sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, two years’ supervised release, and $25,000 restitution.
- The Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) moved for final discipline; the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) held a hearing and by majority recommended a three-year prospective suspension (two members dissented and recommended disbarment).
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted review, considered the nature of the misconduct (sale of public office/favors), rejected the DRB majority’s mitigation rationale, and ordered disbarment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an attorney convicted of official bribery/extortion should be disbarred | OAE: conviction involves selling public office; disbarment is the proper, ordinarily automatic, sanction | Cammarano: mitigating factors (sting operation target, passive participant, prior good character, remorse) justify lesser discipline | Court: Disbarment ordered; bribery/extortion of public office warrants disbarment to protect public trust |
| Whether the DRB’s mitigation (sting, passive role) reduces culpability enough to avoid disbarment | OAE: sting/role do not mitigate the fundamental breach of public trust | Cammarano: was targeted, did not orchestrate scheme, limited participation | Court: Rejected mitigation; respondent was not merely passive and accepted bribes knowingly; mitigation insufficient |
| Whether exceptions to the per se-disbarment rule for bribery apply here | OAE: exceptions are narrow and inapplicable | Cammarano: points to limited precedents where suspension (not disbarment) was imposed | Court: Exceptions rare; New Jersey precedent mostly mandates disbarment for public-corruption bribery; exceptions do not apply here |
| Standard for discipline where lawyer is public official and accepts bribes | OAE: selling office is a breach of both attorney and public oaths; discipline must restore public confidence | Cammarano: emphasizes rehabilitation, character letters, and community service | Court: Emphasizes protecting public confidence; conduct so corrosive that only disbarment will suffice |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Coruzzi, 98 N.J. 77 (1984) (disbarment for judge who accepted bribes)
- In re Hughes, 90 N.J. 32 (1982) (disbarment for attorney who bribed a public official)
- In re Conway, 107 N.J. 168 (1987) (certain violations are per se disbarment offenses)
- In re Gallo, 178 N.J. 115 (2003) (purpose of disciplinary process: protect public and promote confidence)
- In re Harris, 182 N.J. 594 (2005) (factors for measuring appropriate discipline)
- In re Callahan, 70 N.J. 178 (1976) (bribery of public officials undermines government)
- In re Magid, 139 N.J. 449 (1995) (attorneys in public office held to highest standards)
- In re Izquierdo, 209 N.J. 5 (2012) (disbarment for attorney who bribed zoning official)
- In re Caruso, 172 N.J. 350 (2002) (limited exception: three-year suspension in unusual facts)
- In re Sabatino, 65 N.J. 548 (1974) (conspiracy to bribe public official warrants disbarment)