Case Title: Matter of Cohen

Citation: 120 N.J. 304, 576 A.2d 855

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 1990-07-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
120 N.J. 304 (1990) 576 A.2d 855 IN THE MATTER OF JEROME JAY COHEN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued June 7, 1990. Decided July 20, 1990. William R. Wood, Deputy Ethics Counsel, argued the cause on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. No appearance was made on behalf of respondent. *305 PER CURIAM. This matter arises out of a presentment filed by the District IV Ethics Committee (DEC), which concluded that respondent had committed unethical conduct. The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) agreed that respondent had engaged in unethical conduct that violated RPC 1.4, by failing to communicate with his client; RPC 1.3, by failing to pursue a client's case diligently; RPC 1.1(b), by exhibiting a pervasive pattern of negligence and neglect; and most importantly, RPC 8.4(c), by misrepresenting the status of the case to his client, and by altering the filing date on the complaint in an attempt to deceive the court and his adversaries. The DRB recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years, that suspension to run consecutively to the one-year suspension he was then serving. Respondent is a sole practitioner who was admitted to the bar in 1965. He maintained his office in Cherry Hill until February 15, 1989, when this Court suspended him from the practice of law for one year for numerous ethical violations, including: Respondent also was privately reprimanded on February 6, 1979, under DR 1-102(A)(4) for conduct involving misrepresentation to an expert. This matter arises out of respondent's handling of a claim resulting from a three-car collision that occurred in January 1984 involving his client Samuel Joftis. Respondent was retained by Joftis to pursue a claim against two drivers and the *306 owner of the driveway where the accident occurred. In December 1984 Joftis settled with one of the drivers and signed a release. The facts with respect to the other parties in the suit are accurately described by the DRB: Moreover, throughout the entire disciplinary proceeding respondent has been completely unresponsive and uncooperative. He did not attend the DEC or DRB hearings. At the conclusion of the hearing the DEC concluded he had been guilty of unethical conduct. The DRB found the conclusions of the DEC were supported by clear and convincing evidence: It is well-established that the purpose of discipline is not to punish the attorney but to protect the public from an attorney who does not meet his or her professional responsibilities. There can be no doubt that respondent has failed to meet his professional responsibilities, as evidenced by his prior ethical violations, resulting in a private reprimand, a one-year suspension, and by these present violations. Respondent's ethical violations are many. He intentionally altered an official document, a serious offense that warrants a lengthy suspension. In re Yacavino, 100 N.J. 50, 494 A.2d 801 (1985) (forging judge's name to an adoption order warranted three-year suspension); In re McNally, 81 N.J. 304, 406 A.2d 1315 (1979) (forging sheriff's name to deed of foreclosure warranted two-year suspension). Additionally, an attorney has a duty to cooperate with the disciplinary committees. In re Grinchis, 75 N.J. 495, 496, 384 A.2d 137 (1978). Respondent has totally failed to do so. Most significantly, however, respondent shows no remorse or improvement in his conduct. Indeed, after his one-year suspension the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) had to obtain an order appointing an attorney as trustee for respondent's law practice to protect his clients. In his one-year suspension order we ordered respondent to comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23, which sets forth the procedures attorneys should follow *308 in informing their clients, adversaries, and the courts when they are suspended from practice. Respondent failed to do so. The OAE received several calls from respondent's clients notifying it that he had not told them of his suspension nor of the whereabouts of their files. Repeated attempts to communicate with respondent failed. Respondent offers no explanation or mitigating factors for his egregious conduct. His failure to comply with Guideline 23, his numerous ethical infractions, his continuous unresponsive and uncooperative attitude towards his clients, the courts, and the entire disciplinary system lead us to conclude that the two year-suspension recommended by the DRB does not represent sufficient discipline. We note that when the DRB recommended a two-year suspension to be served consecutive to the prior one-year suspended term respondent was then serving, it did not have before it respondent's complete failure to comply with Guideline 23. Respondent's continuous disregard of his clients, the courts, and the disciplinary system lead us to conclude that disbarment is the only appropriate discipline. We are unable to conclude that respondent will improve his conduct. Respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for administrative costs. So ordered. For disbarment Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN 7. Opposed None. It is ORDERED that JEROME JAY COHEN, is disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further *309 ORDERED that respondent's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys, and it is further ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.