*1 SOMMERS, AN W. IN THE OF MATTER CHARLES LAW. ATTORNEY AT 27, 1988 February 1989. Argued September Decided *2 Counsel, Janasie, Deputy argued John J. Ethics the cause on Attorney behalf of Office of Ethics. argued pro
Charles the W. Sommers cause se. PER CURIAM. disciplinary proceeding presentments
This of three arises out by South) (Bergen County filed the II-B District Ethics Com- (the Committee), mittee DEC which concluded each matter respondent had committed Discipli- unethical conduct. The (DRB) nary agreed Review Board the finding with DEC’S of conduct, unethical and unanimously that respon- recommended dent We be disbarred. remanded the matter to the DEC for a hearing respondent’s right further on claim of to the funds that the DRB determined he had misappropriated. hearing After a the upon DEC concluded “based adduced the facts and testimo- ny adduced it that respondent before the did in fact willfully misappropriate and knowingly trust funds in his account that belonged himself, Mary to than namely other to Gener and to independent John Gener.” Our review of the record leads us to the respondent conclusion misappropriated funds. We conclude that he should disbarred.
I admitted present- to the bar in 1969. The complaints. ments stem seven complaints from of these Six were by filed former clients of respondent. the The seventh complaint by (OAE). Attorney was filed the Office of Ethics We complaints discuss first the six filed former clients, all pattern gross neglect of which establish a negligence part respondent.
Gullone Matter May In 1978 James retained Gullone to institute a legal personal action for injuries sustained in an Although respondent filed suit for Mr. accident. automobile interroga- Gullone, for failure to answer suit was dismissed Gullone, respon- representation of Mr. Throughout tories. adequately advise client dent failed and refused to action, legal failed and refused to communicate progress of his client, and and refused by telephone with his failed writing or client when papers provide information to turn over sought engage other counsel. the client Matter Jazwinski by Mary and John was retained May represent purchase of a condominium. them the
Jazwinski May 1983. occurred on closing The condominium *3 condomin- his the deed to the Respondent give failed to clients closing re- Additionally, after the September ium until 1983. copy a provide to his clients with of spondent failed and refused statement, explanation any of the matters shown closing their statement, any answer closing and refused to on the failed phone concerning closing statement. calls
Berkey Matter Berkey by to retained Mr. August
In was neglect Due to the of represent him a divorce action. testifying on his respondent, precluded from Berkey Mr. was appeal an from the Respondent filed own at trial. behalf any paid for requesting that fee be trial decision without court satisfactorily action was Subsequently his divorce services. provide to his client respondent failed and refused settled but to allegedly paid accounting the sum of with of $400 an copy of the provide his client with a expenses, failed to dent for home, of or to marital Judgment Final Divorce deed telephone or letters. his client’s calls any answer of refused to Matter Dispoto Madeline by retained was December 1979 personal legal for
Dispoto her to institute a action husband injuries Mrs. had Dispoto an sustained accident. automobile Although respondent Dispotos, filed suit the suit was prosecution August 9, dismissed for lack of on with leave taken, reopen to the case. No further being action the action prejudice was dismissed with on March 1983. Earlier in his representation, respondent the Dispotos advised that the suit proceeding “wrapping up and that he would it soon.” Subsequently, respondent respond any failed to of his clients’ inquiries legal progress action, on the of their failed and re- or writing fused to communicate telephone with his clients, and failed papers provide and refused to turn over information to the sought engage client who other counsel.
Conway Matter Conway January Anna died 1977. left a She will she wherein named as father the executor. Prior Conway to her Ms. hospital, death had been confined and a law firm had been incompetency retained to start proceedings against However, prior her. to any judgment incompetency, Conway Ms. died. father, executor, was hired as the attorney.
estate’s filed necessary probate He for the in May estate, 1978. Two the beneficiaries of the one whom will, named as alternate Conway’s executor under Ms. constant- ly inquiry telephone wrote letters of and made calls to the respondent, concerning accounting and the distribution of *4 inquiries the All estate. such writings were unanswered. No estate; or documents were submitted for accounting the no filed; prepared ever was and at the time presentment filed, the status and location of the estate’s assets were not known.
Guido Matter 1977, respondent Louis R. retained represent Guido to him in Judgment a divorce action. for divorce entered disposition of the mari- incorporated and February to the pursuant sold premises were The marital property. tal placed proceeds Judgment July 1979 and interest-bearing account. an relating Motions were filed post-judgment
Thereafter several July funds. Between of the trust account the disbursement to made from were several disbursements and November A the Guidos. handwritten various creditors of the account to court, to the was submitted accounting September 1981 dated 12, 1981, directing November resulted in an Order dated which accounting. in accordance with disbursement immediate failed by Mr. Guido telephone calls Innumerable funds, respondent had failed in distribution of the to result Indeed, neither accounting to Mr. Guido. updated provide Guido, any wife, has received nor his former Carmen Mr. Guido respondent. funds from complaints, respect to these six that with
The DRB held 6—101(A)(1);a gross neglect, DR “guilty of respondent was 6-101(A)(2); carry out con- failure neglect, DR pattern of 7—101(A)(2);allowing statute of employment, DR tracts of claims, 7-101(A)(3); DR run on various clients’ limitations to failing to commu- clients and making misrepresentations to (6).1 1—102(A)(4) them, DR nicate with II Matter Gener respondent arises from against
The most serious claim In 1983 matter. refund the Gener handling of income-tax Conduct of the September Professional the Rules of 1Effective Court, Association, govern conduct of the as modified this Bar American Respondent’s actions occurred R. 1:14. of the bar of this State. members Disciplinary date, governed by consequently Rules prior and are to this - in force. then *5 represent Mary was retained to Gener her di- husband, against hearing her John Gener. At a vorce action held on the court determined the terms of the October divorce, including equitable of the marital distribution assets. Specifically, respect the federal-income-tax refund re- with Geners, ceived the the court stated: I As far as the IRS refund is when the defendant left find that there concerned, following were the a half fuel, debts: one and months of the first $587; mortgage mortgage two months second $445; of the Those were $400. the items. amount to the $1,432. $1,432 out of total of only provable They gowill to the $1,940 that leaves a balance numbers are plaintiff, $510—my wrong, leaves a balance of Out of that it will be divided in two half, $510. $510 to the two to the defendant. In effect, fifty-five plaintiff; fifty-five plaintiff will receive The will receive $1,687. defendant $255. prepare appropriate The court directed setting order forth the He failed above-enunciated distribution. Consequently opposing prepared to do so. counsel an Order provided entered on as December follows: ORDERED that a certain IRS refund check in the amount of and a $1,940 certain Homestead Rebate check which received the was previously plaintiff follows; the the amount of shall be divided between as parties $186.00 shall $1,593.00 be to the defendant and shall be to the paid paid $347.00 From said shall certain debts which arose plaintiff. $1,593, pay plaintiff from the of the marital abode to the date hereof. Said operation prior expenses mortgage are as follows: fuel l'/a months of the due on the $587.00; payments mortgage mortgage first 2 months on the second and it is $445.00; $400.00; further ORDERED that for the shall said attorney plaintiff pay $347.00 as said IRS check was to be in the Trust Account of defendant, deposited clearing for the The same shall be said check attorney plaintiff. paid upon the Trust Account of the shall Said take whatever attorney. attorney plaintiffs actions are to collect said funds; necessary provided parties The Order also that both were to -execute a proper listing agreement with a real estate broker so that promptly. marital home could sold failed to distribute to Geners the IRS refund listing agreement and also failed to forward the for the marital Therefore, January home to the broker. 1984 Mr. Gener judgment. filed a Notice of Motion to enforce the In his motion, requested any Mr. counsel Gener fees he incurred paid by receipt from this action be Mrs. Gener. On of Mr. *6 motion, Siegel, Esq., as Howard Mrs. Gener retained Gener’s advising Mr. Siegel date Mr. wrote Sommers counsel. On that in the him as counsel Mrs. to substitute him that Gener wished respondent distribute requested that proceedings, and divorce 1983, 25, by orally court on October refund as set forth Eighth In his letter Order. as confirmed its December Siegel Mr. wrote: the sum of which $1,940 of this matter concerns
The most critical aspect Judge the sum 8th, Krafte’s order of December required accordance with of be to Mrs. $1,593 to the defendant and the balance paid of to be paid $347 their in default on each of could two months that were so that she Gener pay has mortgages to release these monies oil bill. Your refusal and a fuel endangered Mrs. and it is my owned Mr. and Gener the property personally damages occur which may to hold responsible any intention you personally judge’s no with order. Under failure to as a result your comply fee used for the balance of any of the same to be circumstances is any portion might owing which you. paid has Moreover, of this date Mrs. Gener he added that “[a]s not a final bill you have submitted you the sum of $750.00 you.” are owed indicating what additional sums telephone and respondent by Siegel attempted to contact Mr. of the failure Siegel the OAE Finally Mr. advised letters. refund in accordance the Gener IRS respondent to distribute the court’s Order. with 1984, 7, and a February from the OAE
After a letter dated 8, February Chancery Division entered from the court order 10, 1984, and February 1984, appeared in court on required distribu- for the IRS account checks issued his trust 8, February disclose that on Respondent’s records trust tions. account to cover 1984, funds in his trust were insufficient there however, by Feb- funds, deposited were checks. Sufficient ruary 1984. requested letter February Seventh
The also in its OAE account from respondent’s trust statements of monthly bank pro- Respondent failed February 1984. 1983 to October 4, 1984, notified the OAE April records and on duce the Respon- trust account. audit his that an accountant would dent ac- any way with the cooperate respond failed to dent suspension Under threat of countant. contained OAE’s respondent May 1984, respondent finally ap- letter to 31, 1984, However, peared May on at the OAE’s office. at that bring required time he failed to all the records. 6, 1984, respondent
On June returned to the OAE’s office. cooperative responsive inquiries At that time he was to the of the OAE auditor. advised the OAE auditor that personal problems July due to the Internal Reve- nue attorney Service had levied on his account in business $1,489.24. Hence, amount of necessity he admitted that of he personal expenses. used his trust account for his *7 A respondent’s review of trust account statements discloses $1,942.00 deposited that he the Gener IRS refund check of in 2, his trust account on November 1983. He made checks $1,500.00 totalling deposit on his trust account from the date of 2, 1983, 23, 1984, leaving November to November a total of 30, in his trust account on November $445.72 1984. For exam- November, ple, refund, in the depositing month of after the IRS 7, 1983, Sommers, he drew one check on November to Denise wife, $200.00, 11, 1983, and another check on November $600.00, represented to Arthur W. Hoffman for which pay- a Likewise, personal judgment against ment on a him. respon- personal dent expenses continued to draw checks for office and personal expenses other closing on his trust account. The 30, respondent’s 1983, balance in trust account on December $316.67, January was and was These $835.17. bank state- ments establish that funds were unavailable the trust fund to pay respective the Geners their share of the IRS refund claim. Indeed, respondent 10, February when made the checks dated Geners, to the there were pay insufficient funds to refund claims. 22, 1984,
On October a complaint OAE filed formal against respondent alleging handling that his of the Gener gross negligence, violating 6-101(A)(l); matter constituted DR funds, misappropriation violating 9-102(B)(4), of trust DR DR 1-102(A)(3), 1-102(A)(4) 1-102(A)(6); DR and DR failure to bring required audit, all the violating records at DR 9-102 and 1-102(A)(5); records, DR keep required violating failure to DR 9-102(B)(3) 6-101(A)(l); and attorney DR misuse of his trust fund to levy circumvent Internal Revenue on his business account, 1-102(A)(5); violating commingling DR of his funds, violating 9-102(A). DR
Respondent did not file an complaint. answer to the OAE’s hearing At January a before the DEC held on appeared requested dent hearing. be excused from the request granted represented The was and he hearing at the Melli, Esq. hearing, Charles At the stipulated Mr. Melli offering no respect factual defense with to the complaints concerning Gullone, Jazwinski, Berkey, and Dis- matters, poto complaint OAE, and the formal filed admitted allegations complaints the truth of the set forth in the Respondent’s attorney and documents attached to them. asked for a continuance opportunity present to have an as a mitigating factor evidence dependen- alcoholic 1, 1985, cy. On March entered into a consent order temporarily suspending practice him from the of law. That Order remains effect. hearing
At the held March DEC a detailed Gallina, report Diplómate of Dr. David J. of the American *8 Psychiatry Neurology, presented Board of was as evidence respondent’s problem. alcohol Dr. Gallina concluded that presented during on the information the course of this “[b]ased evaluation, appears it that alcohol influenced Charles Sommers in legal difficulty. Specifically the actions that caused his inappropriate throughout practice behavior exhibited his law determined, however, directly was related to illness.” He that respondent “recovering was a alcoholic.” The record also es- House, hospitalized tablishes that Mr. Sommers at Sunrise 1984, 24, Lafayette, Jersey, August discharged New on on September pro- 1984. connection with own divorce to seek the court ceedings, respondent has been ordered incarcerated. treatment or be stipulated the facts respondent had noted that The DEC true, unanimously deter- complaints several of the disciplined. None- severely respondent should be mined that “relatively theless, recognized that the DEC abuse,” that the and recommended way alcoholic byman sick psychiatric condition physical and should consider his DRB considering disciplinary sanctions. appropriate have con- may “alcohol well DRB that while The concluded ” judgment,’ control of ‘loss of critical respondent’s tributed however, record, which indicate nothing in the would “[tjhere is competency, compre- such a loss of respondent suffered Thus, will, the DRB excuse his conduct.” as would hension “[rjespondent matter that regard to Gener concluded with person- his trust account for clearly the intent to utilize formed account. levy on his business thwart the IRS purposes al knowing.” Accordingly, the DRB unanimous- His actions were misappropriation. disbarment for ly recommended his why respondent an Order to Show Cause This issued to Court disciplined. At a or otherwise not be disbarred he should Court, argued for the first time hearing before this right a claim of to the hearing that he had any disciplinary is, represented his fees for that such funds funds—that Gener and her sons. We rendered to Mrs. Gener legal services hearing expedited the DEC for an the matter to remanded right. respondent's claim of Gener, attorney, Siegel, Mr. and Mr. her hearing Mrs.
At Siegel that on Mr. testified testified. Sommers respondent called him January receipt letter of of his refund had not reason the IRS part of the and indicated owed that certain monies were was that he felt disbursed been to him Mrs. Gener. the DEC that she hearing Mrs. advised the remand Gener
At check, but the refund respondent numerous times about called *9 Finally, never answered her calls. when he was longer services, advised that she no going was to use his respondent then told he going her was to take his fees out the refund cheek. She testified that she him to until asked wait completely the matter was resolved the sale of the house accomplished, was at which time there be a would resolution of January 10, 1984, the fee response situation. On to this conversation, following Mrs. Gener wrote the letter to dent: Sommers:
Dear Mr. You have federal income tax check for your possession the amount of Judge October $1,942. On Krafte this authorized check to be placed to be as and then to be over your turned possession, deposited my attorney, could then to me so I husband John Gener’s back First proceed pay my bills: mortgage, mortgage, second $648, oil bill etc. etc. $500, $587, In our back in conversation December told me were telephone you you keeping representing good this check as fee for me in divorce your case. my faith I back in time you 1982. At that total fee was a paid September your $500 Agreement thousand dollars. made that the balance was to be at the paid end of services. your handling this I feel at time it is how I unethical are this matter and am you asking along forward this check please me, with an itemized you directly bill for services. your truly yours, Gener.
Very Mary Mr. the hearing quoted Sommers testified at that he had Mrs. figure plus expenses Gener a for an uncontested $750 Moreover, This divorce. divorce contested. he recalled that he received Mrs. her He $500 from Gener and mother. represented also alluded to the fact he had Mrs. sons Gener’s owed money representation. and was for that agreement offered no written re- retainer with spect any correspondence to the fees for the divorce reflect- ing respect agreement with to his fees services to present any legal rendered. Nor did he ever statement for rendered to services Mrs. Gener or rendered to her sons. Indeed, pointed by respondent’s when it was out own account Mrs. Gener not him total did owe amount of refund, he testified as follows: *10 to the I it is. I’m not sure as amount the Oh, exactly quoted lady whatever yes, I I at that owed
as to how much she owed me. But was confident time was the money. questioned why obey he not the court’s order as to did When forth in record October he testified: set on given not time in court to Now I did understand that at the it was orally fqr that that these funds were to be directed specifically payment. statement why obey explanation of he did not offered no course, that Eighth December written court order. Of for his the total refund amount had been used own date personal use. any explanation why he did not
Nor does offer Instead, when pay Mr. Gener his share of refund. why felt he was entitled to John Gener’s dent was asked he check, portion replied: of the refund he thought adjustment having his had another on A I that there been account to I wasn’t that he was cashed another check was due his wife. aware saw____ get until of that back I due any part ahead. I’m Go Q sorry. I
A —until saw that order. I he I had several other checks. wasn’t aware that Because know he cashed knowledge. get due that back. That wasn’t my review of the record that The DEC concluded based its knowingly misappropriate funds in his respondent did in fact belonged Mary Gener and to John Gener. trust account that
Ill independent the record confirms clear review of Our guilty unethical con- convincing respondent is evidence that against him. complaints filed None- respect to all the duct with Gullone, respect to the respondent’s conduct with theless while Jazwinski, matters consti- Berkey, Dispoto, Conway, and Guido (supra 210- disciplinary rules at serious of the tute violations respondent’s disbarment they are not sufficient to result present suspension. period longer suspension for a than Accordingly, issue here is whether there is clear and convincing that respondent knowingly willfully evidence misappropriated his clients’ funds and funds he escrow holding for independent Mr. Gener. Based on our of the review record, clearly we find that evidence and convincingly establish- es respondent misappropriated Mrs. Gener’s funds and Mr. Gener’s funds. Our review of actions lead us to conclude that did not have an honest belief that he *11 was entitled to the refund claim as his fee.
Misappropriation
“any
is
the
unauthorized use
law
yer
him,
of
only
clients’ funds entrusted to
not
including
stealing, but
temporary
lawyer’s
also unauthorized
use for the
purpose,
own
or
any personal gain
whether
not he derives
or
Wilson,
451,
(1979).
benefit
In
81
1
therefrom.”
re
N.J.
455 n.
Noonan,
As
(1986), knowing
we stated in In re
The
intent to borrow or
the
lawyer leading
pres-
sures on
take
money,
the
him to
the
the
attorney’s good
ence of the
character and fitness and absence
“dishonesty, venality,
immorality”
of
or
are all irrelevant.
In
160;
Noonan,
re
to Mrs. of the as Gener’s share refund of his fee. We find support little this in the for assertion record. The court tran- script clearly states the manner in was to which IRS refund distribution, parties reason distributed to and the for the Moreover, namely, pay unpaid mortgage and fuel bills. assuming respondent accurately did not hear the court’s order, oral the court’s distribution was set forth schedule Eighth December written The record no reason Order. reveals 222 a
why obey Only did not that Order. after threatening did and a letter from the OAE court order finally Matter comply the court’s Order. See dent with (1986) (even Brown, assuming respondent’s 102 517 N.J. check, passed originated there problem with a client who a bad dipping into no for his constant trust account excuse thereafter). too, years is no excuse for four a half So there respondent's the refund as failure for two months distribute directed the court.
Furthermore,
any
has failed
set forth in
to date
per-
he
any disciplinary hearing
or at
the services
document
he
Mrs.
for Mrs. Gener or the amount
claims
Gener
formed
He
to Mrs.
legal
him for his
services.
never sent
bill
owes
Moreover,
legal
no
there is
evidence
services
Gener.
sons,
respondent allegedly performed for Mrs. Gener’s
other
statements,
he claims for
vague
no statement
fees
than .his
any
why
nor
Mrs. Gener would be
explanation
these services
Hence,
legal
her
this
responsible for the
fees of
adult sons.
(1986),
Reiss,
D.
case is not like In re Arthur
N.J.
(1984).
attorneys
Stein,
In those cases the
that through lawyer the stipulated to this his at Initially, he tures. Further, 14,1984. testimony his on January hearing DEC 1988, the acknowledged he had reviewed OAE February he attorney that the OAE complaint advised his and exhibits and with the unavoidable complaint correct. is struck was One theory right of was devel respondent’s claim conclusion that for his actions. oped justification as ad hoc respondent’s found in support for conclusion is Further this the portion of IRS refund claim. regarding Mr. Gener’s actions
223 Respondent not taking portion Mr. was Gener’s of refund as an of his respondent advance fee. Mr. Gener owed no fee. Respondent’s explanation that he felt adjust- there was some ment between Geners hence did not think Mr. Gener any part was entitled to of is the refund meritless. pausible
offers no claim right of to Mr. Gener’s refund. The court directed to act depository as a for the IRS refund check until he portion distributed Mr. of the Gener’s refund to He agent him. received this refund as an or trustee for Mr. question, respondent Gener. Without misappropriated Mr. portion Gener’s of the fori purposes. refund own his See Hollendonner, Matter (1985) (there 102 28 N.J. is a of parallel funds, between escrow client funds and trust and an attorney knowingly who subject misused escrow funds will rule). to the disbarment recognize
We that during period respondent facing this great pressures, personal both domestic and Like- financial. wise, recognize personal problems we that these were caused greatly compounded respondent’s or drinking severe problem. (1986), Hein, As Matter N.J. we of recognize respondent’s that to the loss “alcoholism contributed judgment, of critical control cannot that the but conclude departure evidence principle warrants from the that we set opined respondent’s forth in In re Wilson.” Dr. Gallina problem alcohol influenced him to undertake the actions and inappropriate legal that caused his As behavior difficulties. Hein, was the case evidence alcoholism but dependency, demonstrates alcohol does “not demonstrate to competency, comprehension, us the kind of loss of will that can at 303. excuse misconduct.” Id. The evidence falls suggesting short of that when the the IRS used personal expenditures, refund for he to “com- unable prehend the form capacity nature his act or lacked requisite intent.” Id. at 303. circumstances,
On consideration of all we conclude *13 appropriate discipline is direct- is disbarment. appropriate Financial Committee ed to reimburse the Ethics administrative costs. ordered.
So
CLIFFORD, Justice, dissenting. respondent’s although conduct agree I with the Court Berkey, Dispoto, Conway, Gallone, Jazwinski, respect infractions, sus- ethical matters constituted serious and Guido running from the period longer not than the time pension for a suspension, namely, is suffi- temporary March date of knowing discipline. The then becomes a cient issue whether established, matter has been as misappropriation in the Gener convincing I has, by clear evidence. concludes it the Court think not. intend his own appropriate client funds to
Did use, they funds and that he was not knowing were client acknowledge that on this I would have to entitled to them? that he did. On the face might very well determine record one exactly explanation is not page respondent’s the printed the funds to overwhelming: I had disbursed “At time I money and still believe that I owed that myself I believed * * * certainly I didn’t intend that money. I was owed that fully payment for a contested going my to be [$]750 enough days.” But his denial is two divorce that would include in respondent’s keeps in mind the other distractions when one personal circumstances—both professional existence and a conclusion that bring upme short of shambles—to by clear knowing has established misappropriation been dent’s inspire explanation does not convincing Maybe the proof. distinction, professional in this a sense of observer credibility. impression of it leave an but does mind: what did trying respondent’s state of to divine We are transgression His must did he “intend”? he “know” what contrary convincing evidence. And by clear and be established court, in which sit to appellate we function of an to the usual *14 determine whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a court’s and in ordinarily lower conclusions which we defer to appraisal credibility, obliged the factfinder’s of we are in disciplinary proceedings to our independent make own con- issues, disputed clusions on including questions all factual (The credibility. is, incidentally, therapeutic, exercise a bit of eye-opener, least, a respect, appel- reminder that in that at judges generally uncomfortable, easier, late have the less even colleagues bench, task than our on the trial who have make “credibility” every then, day.) Ultimately, calls I must fall my appraisal back own of—almost visceral to—re- reaction spondent’s denial. appellate-review function, engaged
Were I the conventional might agree I very with the Court’s result. well when, surely right by do But did not Ms. Gener. in the context luckless, forlorn, proceedings, disorganized, hap- of these this knowingly somebody less me that lawyer tells he did not take funds, no proffered justification else’s then matter thin his how may perspective viewed from of more be when the rational lawyers, contrary “conventional” I conclude cannot that the proposition convincing proof. been has established clear and admit, must, very I am reluctant to as I that the evidence same respondent might bring opposite involving a different me to the result—reluctant, for because that kind of ad hominem basis consistency stability does not do much and determination I disciplinary adjudications. say? our can I believe this What may respondent. I not believe the next one. Factfinders—trial every judges appraisals day. kinds of juries—make and those period temporary suspension, I for the suspend would proctorship arrangement on the only reinstate condition of a Attorney approved the Office of Ethics. WILENTZ and For disbarment—Chief Justice Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK and GARIBALDI—4. CLIFFORD, suspension—Justices
For O’HERN STEIN—3.
ORDER of HACK- that CHARLES W. SOMMERS is It ORDERED be stricken from the and that name be disbarred ENSACK it immediately; is State, effective attorneys this roll of further *15 SOMMERS, be and here- W. JR. that CHARLES
ORDERED law; enjoined practicing from permanently restrained is and it is further with Administrative respondent comply
ORDERED Attorney dealing with Ethics 23 of the Office Guideline No. attorneys; it is further disbarred the Ethics Financial respondent reimburse ORDERED that appropriate administrative costs. Committee ASSOCIATES, LIMITED NEWA JERSEY MAIN STREET LOWER HOUSING ASSO- AND A LIMITED DIVIDEND PARTNERSHIP ASSOCIATES, CIATION; A NEW JERSEY PLAZA AND UNION DIVIDEND HOUS- AND A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LIMITED ASSOCIATION, AND CROSS- PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS ING RESPONDENTS, AND MORTGAGE JERSEY HOUSING v. NEW JERSEY, AGENCY, DEFENDANT- NEW STATE OF FINANCE AND CROSS-APPELLANT. RESPONDENT 13, 1988 February 1989. Argued September Decided