In the Matter of William J. Torre(075524)
127 A.3d 690
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Attorney William J. Torre (admitted 1984) borrowed $89,250 from M.D., an 86‑year‑old long‑time client who was legally blind and financially unsophisticated.
- Torre prepared a short, unsecured promissory note (10% interest, due Aug. 31, 2008) and deposited the funds into his personal account the day after the note was signed.
- Torre did not provide written advice recommending independent counsel, did not obtain written informed consent to the transaction or to his role, and the loan lacked collateral.
- M.D. received minimal repayments; she sued and obtained a default judgment. She filed a grievance before her death; Torre later made a partial payment from a short sale and promised a repayment schedule.
- The OAE charged violations of RPC 1.8(a) (business transactions with a client) and RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty related to a June 25, 2008 letter). The DEC and DRB found an RPC 1.8(a) violation; they rejected clear proof of fabrication and recommended censure (with two DRB members dissenting for a 3‑month suspension).
- The Supreme Court found Torre conceded the RPC 1.8(a) violation, emphasized the substantial financial and emotional harm to a vulnerable elder, and imposed a one‑year suspension (noting disbarment would be warranted if there were proof he intended not to repay at the time of the loan).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Torre’s loan from his client violated RPC 1.8(a) | Torre failed to provide written disclosure, did not advise seeking independent counsel in writing, did not obtain written informed consent, and the terms were unfair/unreasonable | Torre conceded he violated RPC 1.8(a) but framed the conduct as a mistake and urged censure | Court: Violated RPC 1.8(a); terms were unfair, client unsophisticated, safeguards absent; violation proven |
| Whether Torre fabricated or misrepresented by creating/sending the June 25, 2008 letter (RPC 8.4(c)) | OAE alleged letter was manufactured to retroactively show compliance and thus constituted dishonesty | Torre asserted discovery of the letter but could not prove it was fabricated; contested provenance inconclusive | Court/DRB: Insufficient clear and convincing evidence of fabrication; RPC 8.4(c) charge dismissed |
| Appropriate discipline for the RPC 1.8(a) violation | OAE: three‑month suspension given serious harm | Torre: adopt DEC/DRB recommendation of censure | Court: One‑year suspension due to substantial economic and emotional harm to a vulnerable elder; repayment schedule required; disbarment reserved if intent to defraud proven |
| Public policy re: elder abuse and lawyer conduct | OAE urged protection of elders and deterrence | Torre argued mitigation (no prior discipline, character evidence) | Court: Emphasized elder‑abuse risk, need to protect public and confidence in bar; mitigation considered but one‑year suspension appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Smyzer, 108 N.J. 47 (1987) (attorneys must take every precaution to ensure clients understand risks and need for independent advice)
- In re Gavel, 22 N.J. 248 (1956) (foundational statement on high ethical standards for lawyers)
- In re Doyle, 146 N.J. 629 (1996) (close scrutiny of business transactions with clients; reprimand vs suspension framework)
- In re Wolk, 82 N.J. 326 (1980) (disbarment appropriate where attorney knowingly intends not to repay client loan)
- In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979) (historical precedent on severe discipline when fraud on client is proven)
- In re Gallop, 85 N.J. 317 (1981) (burden on attorney to establish fairness and equity in transactions with clients)