Case Title: In Re Verdiramo

Citation: 475 A.2d 45, 96 N.J. 183

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 1984-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
96 N.J. 183 (1984) 475 A.2d 45 IN THE MATTER OF VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. May 31, 1984. *184 Colette A. Coolbaugh, Counsel, argued the cause for complainant Disciplinary Review Board. Sheldon A. Weiss argued the cause for respondent. PER CURIAM. The essential facts in this disciplinary case have been set forth in the Decision and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB). The DRB also noted that two other federal indictments that were pending against respondent at that time had been dismissed *185 as part of the plea agreement. The indictments and their dispositions were summarized as follows: The DRB mentioned respondent's contention "that, because of his activities as a criminal defense attorney these indictments had no merit and were part of a course of conduct of certain individuals within the federal government who were `trying to wear (him) down.'" The respondent served approximately 45 days in a federal prison facility for the conviction. His probationary term ended on October 11, 1982. The DRB determined that respondent was guilty of ethical misconduct deserving of discipline. It stated: We concur in the findings of the DRB. The clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that respondent was guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice in attempting to persuade a prospective witness to testify falsely before a grand jury. This constitutes grave misconduct that goes to the heart of the administration of justice and violates DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5). As we stated in In re Rosen, 88 N.J. 1, 3 (1981): *186 The DRB recognized the gravity of respondent's ethical violation but declined to recommend disbarment. It stated: To foster the public interest and preserve confidence in the justice system, we have held that ethical transgressions, such as the misuse of a client's moneys entrusted to a lawyer, warrant the ultimate sanction of disbarment. E.g., In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979). Professional misconduct that takes deadly aim at the public-at-large is as grave as the misconduct that victimizes a lawyer's individual clients. Because such a transgression directly subverts and corrupts the administration of justice, it must be ranked among the most egregious of ethical violations. We have not, in the past, been uniform in our approach to appropriate sanctions for serious ethical violations of this kind those that involve criminal acts of dishonesty that directly impact the administration of justice. Compare In re Rosen, supra, 88 N.J. 1 (respondent's conviction of attempted subornation of perjury resulted in suspension of three years in view of mitigating factors) and In re Mirabelli, 79 N.J. 597 (1979) (respondent's guilty plea to accusation charging bribery warranted three year suspension and not disbarment due to mitigating circumstances) with In re Hughes, 90 N.J. 32 (1982) (respondent's guilty plea to charges of bribing public official and forging public documents warrants disbarment despite mitigating factors). We believe that ethical misconduct of this kind involving the commission of crimes that directly poison the well of justice is deserving of severe sanctions and would ordinarily require disbarment. See, e.g., In re Hughes, supra, 90 N.J. 32. Under the circumstances of this case we are constrained to adopt the DRB's recommendations that respondent be suspended *187 from the practice of law for the period of time that he has been barred from active practice of law. As noted, in the past we have not consistently imposed the same measure of discipline for the commission of crimes that directly undermine the administration of justice. In several recent cases involving crimes and ethical breaches of this magnitude, we did not disbar the offending attorney. See, e.g., In re Mirabelli, supra, 79 N.J. 597; In re Rosen, supra, 88 N.J. 1. Further, respondent has been effectively removed from the practice of law for approximately seven years. This greatly exceeds the maximum period of suspension three years traditionally imposed by this Court for the most serious ethical infractions that do not otherwise warrant disbarment. Cf. In re Friedland, 92 N.J. 107 (1983) (disbarment imposed by the Indiana Supreme Court for professional misconduct in that State, which in effect was similar to a suspension of five years, resulted in reciprocal New Jersey suspension of five years). Finally, we are mindful that the events that now call for the exercise of discipline occurred more than eight years ago. In this case, the public interest in proper and prompt discipline is necessarily and irretrievably diluted by the passage of time. Disbarment now would be more vindictive than just. Cf. In re Strickland, 87 N.J. 575 (1981) (recognition of non-retroactivity in In re Smock, 86 N.J. 426 (1981), is appropriate where ethics complaints were filed a considerable time prior to In re Wilson, supra, 81 N.J. 451 and misappropriations occurred even earlier); In re Smock, supra, 86 N.J. 426 (retroactive application of In re Wilson, supra, does not serve a deterrent purpose). We conclude that under the special circumstances present in this case, the interests of the public and the legal profession will be served adequately by respondent's suspension from the practice of law for the period of time commencing with the order providing for his temporary suspension effective on January 1, 1977 to the date of this opinion. Respondent shall, however, be required to apply for reinstatement to practice and shall be admitted only upon the order of this Court. He is *188 directed to reimburse the Administrative Office of the Court for appropriate administrative costs including production of transcripts. For suspension Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN and GARIBALDI 7. It is ORDERED that the suspension from the practice of law of VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO of JERSEY CITY that commenced on January 1, 1977, shall continue until the date of this Order and until the further Order of this Court after consideration of an appropriate application for restoration; and it is further ORDERED that VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO reimburse the Office of Attorney Ethics for appropriate administrative costs, including the production of transcripts; and it is further ORDERED that VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO is restrained and enjoined from the practice of law during the period of his suspension; and it is further ORDERED that VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO comply with Administrative Guideline # 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics regarding suspended attorneys.