*1 jury verdict established that the view of our conclusion funds, we misappropriated client knowingly that Respondent shall reimburse that he be disbarred. order appropriate for administrative Committee Financial Ethics costs.
So ordered. HANDLER, CLIFFORD, For disbarment —Justices O’HERN, POLLOCK, and STEIN—6. GARIBALDI Opposed—None.
ORDER CLIFTON, who IULO of that DENNIS J. It is ORDERED disbarred and of this State be to the bar was admitted attorneys of this roll of stricken from the that his name be it further State, immediately; and is effective hereby perma- is DENNIS J. IULO be that ORDERED law; it is practicing enjoined from nently restrained and further respondent comply with Administrative that
ORDERED dealing Attorney Ethics No. 23 of the Office Guideline attorneys; and it is further disbarred Financial respondent reimburse the Ethics ORDERED costs. appropriate administrative for Committee SPAGNOLI, AN THE MATTER OF JAMES IN AT LAW. ATTORNEY July 1989. Argued 1989 Decided March *2 Johnson, Director, Jr., argued David E. the cause on behalf Attorney of Office of Ethics. argued respondent. cause for
Richard H. Kress PER CURIAM. proceeding attorney-disciplinary
This matter involves an prompted by complaints against respondent, fifteen James complaints allege neglect, gross Spagnoli. pattern The a V. negligence, diligence representation, a lack of due failure to clients, communicate with and failure to return clients’ files. charged having misrepre- is The also with made a cooperate sentation to the court and failure to in the conduct, disciplinary proceedings. Respondent’s termed an spree” by Disciplinary “ethical violations Review Board (Board DRB), prompted majority or a five-member of the Board Three recommend disbarment. members would im- have suspension posed indefinitely three-year to be continued until could demonstrate that was fit to resume the practice thorough independent law. After a review of record, adopt disposition by majority we recommended of the DRB.
I. developed facts as before the district ethics commit- fully accurately tee were summarized the DRB. These surrounding facts relate in detail the circumstances the ethical violations.
“The Matter Christoffersen (‘Grievant’) respondent E. retained “John Christoffersen in September represent or 1984 to him in October a matrimonial action, paid $1,500.00 at which he respondent time retainer. 25, 1984, grievant signed complaint On October for divorce. requested respondent complaint He file immediately, but grievant’s not it have served until return in from vacation 1984, respondent December. On several in the fall occasions grievant “everything assured that was taken care of”. On 19, 1985, March six months respondent after he to instructed complaint behalf, file a in grievant was served with a complaint divorce agreed filed his wife. then to file pendente an answer and counterclaim and a lite motion. 20, 1985, grievant
“On March was told that answer and 19, 1985, counterclaim and the motion May had been filed. On judgment a default against was entered him. He discovered respondent any then that had not pleadings in his behalf. 30, 1985, May 21, 1985, grievant attempted Between and June respondent by telephone, to contact but his calls were not 6, 1985, grievant returned. On June sent a tele- gram terminating his services. Grievant then retained new counsel, vacating in the default. The who was successful Security Fund the total retainer Clients’ reimbursed $1,500.00. Headley “The Matter August Headley retained “Ruth represent potential her in connection with a interest pension her ex-husband’s benefits. On numerous occasions respondent, receiving a grievant attempted to contact without respondent’s representa- phone return call. Dissatisfied with tion, August grievant requested that return daily Although respondent’s file. she called office almost her week, particular her calls remained unanswered. On a for a occasion, grievant told her file could not be returned her, only attorney. to another office, respondent’s August grievant appeared
“In at not file She was told that she could have the unannounced. copied. presenter in this matter it had to be After because office, respondent’s contacted was informed that the again, office. Once file would be available at' office, she was unable to appeared when she at Although a letter to on secure her file. she wrote 21, 1985, hearing, of the ethics as of the date November January respondent had not returned her file. When counsel, agree grievant consulted with new would the file. prior her without review of *4 Matter “The Kudla $1,475.00 (‘Grievant’) paid respondent a “Kathleen A. Kudla 3, 1984, in a divorce action May representation on for retainer April respondent’s Pursuant to by her husband in 1984. 15, on June testimony, he dictated an answer and counterclaim 1984, secretary the affidavit of having instructed his to have signed proper- the documents and non-collusion and verification 1984, 2, respondent July acknowl- ly filed with the court. On edged complaint against grievant. service of the for divorce 20, August 1984, respondent’s adversary On in the matter filed request 19, 1984, default. September enter On a default judgment against grievant. was judgment provid- entered equitable ed that already distribution of assets had been accom- plished, pursuant agreement by parties. That was untrue.
“Upon discovering judgment, grievant respon- met with dent, informed apparently who her the court had lost her file application and he would have to make an to set aside the default. prepared testified he a notice of motion and in again delegating certification November to his secretary responsibility filing for the of the documents. Upon inquiries in January October November 1985, grievant by respondent was informed papers that the had 3, 1985, file, been filed. On upon reviewing March the court grievant discovered the According- motion had not been filed. ly, she judge, requesting wrote to the information about By 3, 1985, status of her April judge case. letter dated advised her a against default had been entered her. Pursuant 27, 1985, testimony, April on he found the answer counterclaim and the notice motion in an un- related file. May
“On attorney was contacted an Thereafter, with whom consulted. steps
took no further grievant. July On yet received a letter attorney, request- from another ing grievant’s returned, along retainer be with her file. When fee, did not return the file or the was seeking forced to file a motion the return of both. The motion granted. Although provided personal the court order for upon respondent, service secretary service was made on a however, Respondent, office. knowledge admitted September 22, 1985, of its contents. As of he had not returned attorney, spite file to or her of the court order. testified, also, Grievant that she had difficulty considerable
509 professional relationship. their reaching respondent throughout telephone messages and can- Respondent did return her her. appointments 20—25 celled matter neglect the matrimonial caused “Respondent’s instance, injury. particular because grievant financial In one storage inaction, charges pay she forced to was marina, subject to in a boat an asset kept for a boat which was equitable distribution. Matter
“The Imes “Shirley (‘Grievant’) in late respondent Novem- Imes retained in a matrimonial early or December her ber 1984 time, grievant she At that informed matter. file him to a motion in dire financial straits and instructed was her that the matter support Respondent forthwith. assured for From two weeks. December would be before the court within through February 1985, difficul- grievant had considerable him finally was able to reach ty contacting respondent. She 1985, motion February she advised the at which time was Although of motion in two a notice would be heard weeks. was 2, 11,1985, August until it was not heard indeed on March 1985, adjournments requested by aas result of date, respondent appear. failed to adversary. the return On 1985, grievant advised “By letter June dated representation requested with his of her dissatisfaction ignored request. Once her retainer. refund her unhappiness and grievant expressed her again, August terminating representa- informed that she 1985, she tion, In December having counsel. retained new of the ethics file. As of the date requested return of her hearing, returned. April the file not been
“The Matter Burslem $1,500.00 paid a August “In Gloria Burslem property settle- preparation for the retainer *6 agreement. 1985, inquired ment In October when she about matter, respondent the status the her informed the delay preparation in agreement the was the fault of her husband’s He attorney. added he had several written letters to times, attorney the tried to call him several all to no January 1986, grievant avail. Between October 1985 and at- tempted respondent, unsuccessfully. to contact When she was finally him, copies requested able to reach she of the letters attorney. Respondent written to hung up her husband’s on 18, 1986, February grievant her. On telephoned her husband’s attorney. She discovered had not contacted the attorney all, exception at with of an initial letter written in August 1985. 28, 1986, April grievant
“On requested send her attorney. file to her respondent ignored new When her re- quest, attorney interceded in her behalf. His efforts were also unavailing. grievant’s testimony, Pursuant to respon- detrimentally position dent’s regard inaction affected her to negotiation property agreement. settlement
“The Cook Matter “In January 1986, (‘Grievant’)paid respondent Deborah Cook representation a post-judgment $900.00 retainer for in certain and bankruptcy Although matrimonial matters case. another in office eventually bankruptcy filed the petition, complaint by grievant, respondent after a never filed any pleadings in connection with her matrimonial matters. This notwithstanding, misrepresented papers to had been filed and her ex-husband had been served.
“Beginning in May asked for the return of her file least a at dozen times. As of the date of the hearing, ethics November respondent had not com- plied request, grievant’s with her financial detriment. Spe- cifically, she was forced to work 18 to 25 hours week overtime inability as a result of her to seek an increase in child support. (John) “The Arendt Matter in John Arendt retained “Early seeking him ex-wife, hold in to a object motion child-support payments. Al- contempt for failure to make January on though originally the motion was returnable adjourned Respondent neither it was to March 1986. behalf, grievant’s ap- nor objection to the motion filed an result, in court the return date of the motion. As a peared on holding grievant contempt order court entered an convey him interest marital requiring his one-half home to his ex-wife. *7 order, contempt the grievant apprised respondent of
“When respondent file to it. March offered to a motion vacate On As support of the motion. of prepared he an affidavit 10, 1986, later, grievant July had not been told four months sought grievant filed. to whether the motion had been When file, first,, directly through the return of his at then obtain release As of the attorney, his refused to it. new hearing, respondent had September date the of ethics date, grievant. that same the not the file to As of returned against him grievant’s was judgment which ex-wife obtained still in effect. Arendt Matter
“The Joan Arendt, “Grievant, Arendt, the current wife of Joan is John 1985, respon- August preceding matter. grievant regard post-judgment to a represent her with dent undertook to 21, 1985, grievant’s ex-hus- August On matrimonial matter. transferring interest in the former signed a his band deed her, promptly deed was forwarded to marital home to which recording. having received recorded respondent for Not time, grievant frequent made tele- deed within reasonable of the phone respondent, inquiring to about status calls furnish Invariably, would matter. had conflicting why the deed still not stories as
various recorded, including by been the loss of the deed the clerk’s misfiling by its office and office. As of the date filing complaint, ethics year one after had deed signed, been still had not recorded the deed. aAs result, grievant was forced to hire new counsel to have the deed properly recorded.
“The Perrotti Matter “Nancy Perrotti retained regard post-judgment her with to certain matrimonial matters. August 1985, grievant On and her an ex-husband reached agreement, placed which was on the record. Eleven months thereafter, however, the incorporating order the terms of the agreement still had not been for signa- submitted the court’s Although ture. respondent testified his adversary respon- order, the preparation proposed sible for form of he took steps himself, no to submit the order after discovered the order prepared adversary been within a reason- period order, able time. Without the was unable to right enforce her child support and to the distribution marital assets. occasions,
“On grievant attempted numerous re- to contact spondent inquire telephone about the order. Her calls were ignored. April grievant appeared On at *8 request office to the return her grievant’s of file. Pursuant to respondent testimony, replied ‘you me for my pay- made wait Now, good ment. when ready, give I’m I will you the file.’ (Citation omitted.) Subsequent respondent request- letters to ing produced the return of the file results. no
“Respondent’s conduct caused injury substantial financial to any inasmuch as she had not support received child payments since Similarly, October 1985. she has not received proceeds the totalling $5,500.00, the sale of two lots designed satisfy to her support arrearages ex-husband’s as of the date agreement. the
“The Huneke Matter (‘Grievant’) respondent with on “Helen Huneke consulted 1985, filing 3, employment discrimina- May to discuss the of an 1985, 2, respondent she paid tion in her behalf. On June claim 1985, $1,500.00 July grievant or Between June and retainer. respondent’s office times. She was her husband called phone, in invariably respondent told was either on the confer- phone respondent only out of call ence or the office. 16,1985, shortly contacted on after she returned was December meeting in secretary the of the ethics committee. At a district December, complaint already been respondent indicated the fact, any pleadings in her respondent filed. never filed behalf. 1986,
“By grievant informed July letter dated longer him her. She consulted no to she wished repre- unwilling to attorney who was undertake with another July the new prior to file. On sentation review grievant’s requesting the return of to counsel wrote hearing, ethics file. As of the date of the October Security Fund The Clients’ file still had been released. $1,500.00. reimbursed the total retainer “The Small Matter Small, repre- retained “William Jr. 18,1986, grievant and August On sent in a divorce matter. him placed an which was on record. agreement, his wife reached pro- days Respondent agreed within 30 thereof to submit agree- judgment incorporating the terms posed form of ment. grievant attempted to obtain an
“Following hearing, judg- the form of appointment discuss or, provisions of specifically, the revision of certain ment more inaccurate. Unable judgment which believed be 28, 1986, grievant wrote appointment, on to obtain an October pertinent revisions. When respondent setting forth *9 response, did grievant not receive a judge, contacted trial 29,1986, who wrote to both counsel on November directing that respondent’s adversary prepare judgment, form of awith copy being grievant. sent to grievant On December copy signed judgment received of the from his ex-wife's attorney. Upon reviewing judgment, said he discovered the inaccuracies that he had raised with had not been Respondent corrected. agreed then copy to order a of the transcript and to file a modify judgment. motion to motion was never filed.
“The Sloane Matter September 1986, “In respondent agreed Anna M. Sloane in connection with a divorce action. She paid him a $400.00 retainer and instructed him to file divorce at earliest opportunity. She explained she wished prior the divorce finalized to the birth of her child because she intended to resume her maiden give baby name her Respondent surname. assured her she would be divorced by the end of subsequent occasion, 1986. On a grievant when asked filing about complaint, repre- sented already to her it had been filed and that there was no need sign any for her to documents. Thanksgiving
“Around telephoned respon- dent inquire about the Respondent status of her matter. informed her complaint that the already had been filed and forwarded to the sheriff’s office for service. In mid-December 1986, grievant called the sheriff’s office. She was informed that the complaint summons and had not been received. She then Superior called the Court clerk’s office and discovered the complaint January 1987, never been filed. In grievant both orally in writing requested respondent return her retainer and her file. ignored request. her The Clients’ Security Fund reimbursed $500.00. *10 Wigfall
“The Matter respon- 1985, Wigfall (‘Grievant’) August “In Edna retained by in a filed her represent her divorce action husband. dent to During appearance, a court paid him retainer. $935.50 She attorneys judge, respondent conferred with the told after schedule a new date for the divorce grievant the court would Subsequently, respondent received from her husband’s trial. Judgment Divorce copy Supplemental of a Final of attorney a had September which stated the matter been dated 2, 1986, appeared in April having no one her called for trial on grievant April 2 Respondent neither notified of the behalf. judg- appeared for the trial. When she showed the date nor prom- impossible.’ he told her ‘it was He respondent, ment to judge grievant a conference with the ised he would have Subsequently, promptly advise her of its outcome. would occasions, attempted respondent on numerous grievant to reach information, any re- including requests for without written presently A is sponse respondent. from claim whatsoever Security Fund. pending with the Clients’ “The Solomine Matter paid respon- Ruth “On March Solomine object retainer to to a notice of motion dent a $525.00 parties’ concerning custody and visitation her ex-husband 13,1987. on On March son. The motion was returnable March at time she grievant respondent, and her son met with which dated March 1987. Between signed certifications blank 1, 1987, grievant called office April March 16 and day, advised daily On that last she was on a basis. practice suspended from the of law.
had been file, certifi- receiving copies found of two “Upon her Superior clerk’s office on marked ‘filed’with the Court cations them to the personally 1987. She then delivered March carry the matter until she was able judge, agreed to who copy of a letter also discovered a obtain new counsel. She which to the court return forwarded after motion, referring date of the to the that fact the motion had previous Friday requesting adjourn- been heard on an ground ment on the had been out of state. That false.” hearings, At the conclusion of the the committee concluded guilty had been of negligence gross neglect ten matters; pattern matters; seven representing diligence lack due clients in seven of failure to matters; the client in communicate with four of failure to return matters; the clients’ *11 making files in nine matters; of these and of a the court in to misrepresentation Although acknowledged the one matter. committee had not respondent cooper- investigation ated with the of the nine ethics matters in of the 15 it matters, charged with in only one instance. The respondent formally non-cooperation (b), 1.1(a) violated RPC RPC RPC committee found that and respondent 1.8, 1.4, 1.16(d), 3.3(a) 8.1(b). RPC RPC RPC and The committee that recommended receive respondent public discipline. The DRB that as date hearing, noted of the of its the Clients’ Security (Fund) required has Fund been to reimburse thirteen $14,750 clients a total of what it “completely for termed un- date, $15,950 earned retainers.” As of this has paid been out Fund; $1,735.50 the by approved an additional been for has payment. pending. One claim remains
The DRB found that the conclusions of the ethics committee fully supported by convincing were clear evidence. The Board in all that, finds but two the fourteen matters under review, guilty gross negligence. evidencing respondent Conduct a pattern neglect was in six found of those matters. In seven failed matters, respondent * * preparing filing take to initial action not or In by *. some any papers judgments against instances, default or orders were entered clients contempt ** * * *. In cases, three failed to in court In *. three appear matters, he to the client the been filed or the misrepresented papers delay * * preparing in the documents was caused In *. the adversary adjournment he lied to when Solomine the court he an on the matter, requested eight basis that his client was out-of-state. In he matters, failed to communi- with the or to cate clients their to reasonable for information. respond requests eight In he refused to return the clients’ as In one instances, files, requested. ** ignored providing he a court order matter, for the return of the file *. In * * * least at two he to refund cases, refused unearned retainers. addition, In DRB concluded that had defraud- ed his clients:
517 gross negligence with alone. He acted with malice. did not act Respondent majority of the matters, record never that, reveals safeguard his clients’ from the outset of to take action to interests intended any is not This the case where the undertakes attorney the representation. pleadings initial a files the retainer, receives subsequently representation, clients’ matter. Here, money, loses interest in the respondent accepted legal the clients to on his behalf, to action their induced rely take promised intending to all take whatsoever any the while never steps protect promise, great clients’ detriment. the clients’ some cases liberty property —to —and He abandon his clients. defrauded them. did not only Respondent emphasized had failed to The Board also ethics did cooperate proceedings. against eight complaints fifteen him. answer instituted hearings, covering appear He failed at five the scheduled appear nine of the matters. He also failed to at ethics duty an has a hearing. Board The Board noted that prescribed within the time complaint file an to an ethics answer Kern, Court, (1975), In re N.J. 68 326 by the Rules of the proceed- cooperate as with the committee’s duty as well Grinchis, (1978). N.J. 75 496 re ings. first
The DRB noted that this was not also disciplinary system. In 1982 received encounter with the separate reprimand signing for a client’s name on three public Spagnoli, In re N.J. the court. affidavits filed with *12 (1982). merited
The DRB found that conduct disbar- ment. high to the failure to conform standards required Respondent’s grievous receiving a with the ethical after public coupled
profession reprimand, to the conclusion that his leads the Board it, inescapable breaches that followed un- is rehabilitation. beyond repetitive, character Respondent’s professional disregard callous for his responsibilities acts reveal scrupulous only legal but a in his his and disdain for the entire system, toward clients deficiency designed on a course of conduct character. He embarked predetermined entrusting sought legal him with their defraud his those who protection, clients. his alike, and freedom namely, property [********] is that the record shows that conduct Board concludes mitigation. will not of A lesser sanction than disbarment
incapable adequately has from this who demonstrated that attorney, amply protect public 518 good character and “professional fitness have been and irretriev- permanently (1985). lost.” Matter N.J. 99 Templeton, supra,
ably at 376 By order dated March temporarily suspended practice from the of law until further order of the Respondent Court. practicing has ceased law and remains suspended.
This Court issued an why order to show cause should not be disciplined. disbarred or otherwise
II. This Court’s in disciplinary role “protect matters is to public public interest and ensure that legal confidence profession is not Goldstaub, diminished.” In re 90 N.J. 5 (1982). purpose discipline “The punish offender, is not to protect but is to public from the who does not meet the responsibility standards of profession.” of his In re Barbour, (1988). 109 N.J. 161 It should be borne mind any that one attorney’s transgressions compe “reflect on the tency integrity and of the entire Bar.” In re Barry, 90 N.J. (1982). severity “The discipline imposed to be must comport with the seriousness of the ethical in light infractions of all the relevant circumstances.” Nigohosian, In re 88 N.J. (1982). noted, respondent
As does not contest the factual findings or recommendations of the DRB. Supra Rather, at 507-08. respondent maintains his actions do not warrant disbarment.
We are findings accord with both the of the DRB and its recommendation. As the DRB held: egregious conduct Respondent’s transcends the matters heretofore reviewed this Board and the gross Court where Supreme numerous instances of negligence evidencing neglect conduct have a'pattern warranted * * * long-term from the of law. suspension practice did not act gross negligence alone. He acted with malice. record,
On a full review of the it is clear took fees from his clients while never intending them. neglect negligence When level, rise to they this take on the
519 characteristics of fraud. frequency repetitious pattern violations, of involving these fourteen years, incidents in three practice by reflects a respondent of accepting retainers without intending ever to act on behalf of Goldstein, his clients. In re (1984); 97 (1981). N.J. 548 In re Dailey, 87 N.J. Respondent falsely represented to clients that he would assume responsibility representation, for their nothing but did in their behalf. He lied about the status of their suits. Even after judgments against clients, adverse had been entered respon- any dent failed to take action to assist or them. neglect duty placed When his his clients’ jeopar- interests in dy, speak he refused to they with them when telephoned or they appeared when at his office. consistently He failed to appear at scheduled court dates. simply did not files, to return clients’ to do so. fail refused Respondent argues that he did willfully deceitfully] not “act * * or fraudulently] any any situation *. He did not have personal monetary gain any or from of the circumstances.” However, Security we note that the paid Clients’ Fund has or approved reimbursement clients in the amount $17,685.50. predicate A to the Fund’s reimbursement of clients is a determination that an has acted dishonest- ly. R. 1:28-3. clients, addition to misrepresentations to his
respondent lied to the court in order to excuse his failure to appear in court. As we remarked on another occasion: Lying judge lightly to a matter how white the lie —can never be off. passed —no justice
The destructive of such conduct to the warrants potential stern system (1986).] 102 N.J. sanction. [Matter Johnson, Respondent’s cooperate proceedings failure to with the ethics virtually response was inexcusable. He offered no many complaints against him. repeatedly He failed to appear before ethics committee. He did not attend the hearing the DRB. before As the Board observed:
520 proceedings disregard the the of ethics willful for solemnity
Respondent’s ** *. cannot be countenanced [********] cannot be tolerat- attitude to his ethical cavalier Respondent’s responsibilities judicial entire his the and the clients,
ed. It toward contempt profession shows system. ethi- argument, respondent’s we were informed that At oral professional transgressions and difficulties were substan- cal problems to tially marital and attributable during period these critical which viola- substance abuse produced these matters was occurred. No evidence of tions We or the DRB. have the district ethics committee before application acknowledged deep concern over the our previously involving disciplinary rules in cases our substance abuse. (1986). Hein, re 104 304-05 It is a source N.J. See regret when such conditions contribute to destruc- profound professional career. promising tion of a severity multiple ethical violations In view of committed, appear failure to before combined with participate fully DRB in the district ethics committee and Respon- be disbarred. proceedings, we order for Committee admin- shall reimburse the Ethics Financial dent costs. istrative
O’HERN, J., dissenting. quality” increasingly draw the lines of moral I am unable “to Conway, it can. In re 107 N.J. that the Court thinks (O’Hern, J., respondent has found (1987) dissenting). The been violation, crime, guilty of no has committed Wilson distinguishes his conduct from yet he is to disbarred. What be many are not disbarred? others who so attorneys the names of
Because I see no need besmirch Court, disciplined by I not refer their will previously name, although is well known to the precedent cases Court. misusing the funds of attorney
An who had been convicted of practice. custody has been restored minors in his attorney An who had committed neglect, eleven instances of misrepresented clients, the status of cases to kept retainers earned, that he had not “displayed an indifference to the justice system in his charges” failure to confront the ethics has practice. been restored to
An pattern whose ethical infractions included “a neglect handling matters,” in his legal of his clients’ such as *15 * * * “failpng] carry out employment, ke[eping] contracts of * * performing *, retainers without comminglpng] services * * * funds, clients’ failpng] clients,” trust to account to his funds, and importantly, misusing most clients’ has been re- practice. stored to
A prosecuting attorney drugs who removed from the Coun- ty’s evidence locker with to share a female informant and another, suffering was found to have been from “extreme personal “[d]uring period, stress.” We observed that interim, compass astray. lost his ethical and went In the he has bearings.” practice. found his someday He will be restored to quality? Just does the how Court draw these lines of moral Disciplinary perceive Review Board is them. In unable case, respect this it was divided five to three with to the discipline imposed. part, suspect to be I that was because respondent made no effort to defend himself before that com- mittee.
This is a most unusual case. was to be about appearing disbarred without ever in our Court and his ex-wife explained asked whether we should not seek to know what seemingly stepped An aberrant misconduct. who has plead respondent brought forward to the case of to our atten- during period tion that this from 1984 to 1987 going through deeply a divorce. He was disturbed breakup family change personal relationships of his and the that he could not reconcile. perceive
I cannot a stark difference between and Accordingly, practice. others whom we have restored to I adopt would the recommendation of the three members impose three-year Disciplinary Board that would Review respon- indefinitely thereafter until suspension, to be continued practice he is fit to resume the is able to demonstrate that dent of law. CLIFFORD, HANDLER,
For disbarment —Justices POLLOCK, and STEIN—5. GARIBALDI dissenting separate O’HERN has filed a
Justice opinion—1. suspension
For —1.
ORDER ELIZABETH, that JAMES V. SPAGNOLI It is ORDERED be disbarred to the bar of this State who was admitted attorneys of this stricken from the roll that his name be and State, it further immediately; and is effective hereby and is be that JAMES Y. SPAGNOLI
ORDERED law; practicing from enjoined permanently restrained it is further comply Administrative
ORDERED that *16 dealing Attorney Ethics No. 23 the Office Guideline attorneys; further and it is disbarred the Ethics Financial ORDERED that reimburse costs. appropriate administrative Committee for ASSOCIATES, OF PARTNERSHIP NEW A LIMITED MIRANDA, JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. CARMEN DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. July 1989. Argued 1988 Decided November