Case Title: In Re Tumini

Citation: 468 A.2d 707, 95 N.J. 18

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 1983-12-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
95 N.J. 18 (1983) 468 A.2d 707 IN THE MATTER OF ALFONSO A. TUMINI, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. December 5, 1983. Robyn M. Hill argued the cause for the Division of Ethics and Professional Services. Michael A. DeFino, a member of the Pennsylvania Bar, and admitted by the Board to appear pro hac vice on motion of Robert A. Gelinas, argued the cause for respondent. This matter coming before the Supreme Court on an order to show cause why ALFONSO A. TUMINI of WEST BERLIN should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined on the basis of his disbarment in the State of Pennsylvania, and good cause appearing It is ORDERED that the report of the Disciplinary Review Board recommending that the respondent be disbarred is hereby adopted; and it is further *19 ORDERED that ALFONSO A. TUMINI be disbarred and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further ORDERED that ALFONSO A. TUMINI be and hereby is permanently restrained an enjoined from practicing law; and it is further ORDERED that ALFONSO A. TUMINI reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for administrative costs, including production of transcripts. To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey: This matter is before the Board based upon a motion for reciprocal discipline filed by the Division of Ethics and Professional Services following respondent's disbarment by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania disbarment resulted from respondent's laundering of funds intended to bribe a public official together with his false swearing before a Federal grand jury. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania described the pertinent transactions as follows: The Pennsylvania Court concluded that the respondent's laundering and delivery of payments while knowing that at least one of these payments was a bribe of a public official, together with his false swearing and failure to cooperate while an immunized witness in criminal proceeding and failure to recant until faced with possible prosecution for perjury, required his disbarment. The Court discounted respondent's claim that a sanction less than disbarment should be imposed since he was faced with choosing between loyalty to his friends and compliance with the *21 law and Disciplinary Rules. The Court further noted that, contrary to his assertions, the respondent benefited financially and professionally from his misconduct, and could not utilize the defenses of youth and inexperience since he was "knowledgable and sophisticated about Philadelphia politics and aspects of the criminal court system." The Division of Ethics and Professional Services motion for reciprocal discipline was originally scheduled to be heard by the Board in January of 1983. In light of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent which was then pending with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and following respondent's consent to temporary suspension, that hearing was adjourned without date. On March 28, 1983, the motion for reconsideration was denied, and the reciprocal discipline motion was rescheduled. The Disciplinary Review Board adopts the findings of the Pennsylvania Court in accordance with the direction of the New Jersey Supreme Court in In re Kaufman, 81 N.J. 300 (1979). At hearing before the Board, the respondent did not dispute the factual findings of the Pennsylvania Court with regard to the improprieties found to exist. Respondent did contend, however, that the Court was incorrect in its conclusions as to respondent's political sophistication and personal benefit from his improper activities. In light of the particular findings of misconduct by the respondent, the Board does not find resolution of either matter to be necessary in order to reach a decision. The respondent does not dispute that he was knowingly involved in the laundering of funds, and that the purpose of at least one of the payments was to bribe a public official. Similarly, he does not dispute the finding that he committed perjury before a federal grand jury at the request of Pirillo. As justification, he states that his actions were motivated by loyalty to his friends, and that this loyalty prevailed over integrity. *22 Disbarment in Pennsylvania is not an absolute bar to reinstatement to the practice of law: a disbarred attorney may apply for reinstatement five years and one month after the effective date of disbarment. See P.R.D.E. Rule 218(b) and (b)3(i). In New Jersey, reinstatement following an Order of disbarment is not contemplated by court rules. "... (U)nless good reason to the contrary is shown, the discipline accorded in New Jersey will ordinarily correspond with that imposed in the other jurisdiction" In re Kaufman, 81 N.J. 300 (1979). In the case at hand, however, each of the offenses of laundering funds to bribe a public official or committing perjury would individually merit disbarment in New Jersey. See In re Colsey, 63 N.J. 210 (1973), where an attorney was disbarred for his involvement as a conduit for monies used to bribe public officials; and In re Foster, 60 N.J. 134 (1972), where an attorney was disbarred for perjury in his testimony before a county grand jury and in a subsequent criminal trial, even though he later recanted. The combination of the offenses of perjury and laundering funds mandates disbarment in this state. The Board therefore recommends that the respondent be disbarred, without any possibility of reinstatement. The Board further recommends that the respondent be required to reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for administrative costs, including production of transcripts.