Case Title: In Re Goldstaub

Citation: 446 A.2d 1192, 90 N.J. 1

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 1982-06-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
90 N.J. 1 (1982) 446 A.2d 1192 IN THE MATTER OF SEYMOUR GOLDSTAUB, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued April 20, 1982. Decided June 16, 1982. *2 Colette A. Coolbaugh, Secretary, argued the cause for complainant Disciplinary Review Board. Libero D. Marotta argued the cause for respondent. PER CURIAM. Respondent, a member of the bar since 1960, has been the subject of some 30 ethical complaints during his professional career. From November 23, 1971 to November 14, 1972, he was suspended from the practice of law for failing to respond to a consolidated statement of charges filed by the Hudson County Ethics Committee. The thread running through respondent's ethical history is a failure to attend to his basic responsibilities to his clients, to the profession, and to this Court. This disciplinary proceeding focuses upon respondent's admitted failure to pursue diligently the interests of his clients in three civil cases and one criminal appeal. Complaints by those clients to the District VI (Hudson County) and District II (Bergen County) Ethics Committees led to the return of separate presentments which, in turn, were consolidated before the Disciplinary Review Board. That Board concluded that each failure to act constituted gross negligence and, taken together, the four cases demonstrated a pattern of neglect in violation of DR 6-101(A)(1). At its hearing, DRB made the following findings with respect to the Yuhasz complaint filed with the District VI Ethics Committee: The DRB made the following further findings with respect to the complaints filed with the District II Ethics Committee: DRB then reached the following conclusion and recommendation: Our independent review of the facts leads us to conclude that the factual findings of the DRB are correct, and we adopt them. In general, our role in disciplinary matters is to protect the public interest and ensure that public confidence in the legal profession is not diminished. The purpose of discipline is not to punish the offender, but to protect the public from the attorney who does not meet the standards of responsibility required of every member of the profession. In re Stout, 75 N.J. 321, 325 (1978). Apparently because of respondent's genuine remorse, the Disciplinary Review Board recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months and that he be required to furnish medical evidence of his fitness to return to practice prior to readmission to the bar. Notwithstanding respondent's sincere efforts to rectify his errors with some of his clients, we cannot agree that a six-month suspension is sufficient to safeguard the public interest. Upon consideration of the relevant facts, including respondent's prior disciplinary history, we suspend respondent for a period of one year, with readmission subject to the recommended medical proof of capability to practice. The respondent is required to reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for appropriate administrative costs, including production of transcripts. *6 For suspension Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O'HERN 6. Opposed None. The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that disciplinary action be taken against SEYMOUR GOLDSTAUB of Guttenberg; and good cause appearing It is ORDERED that SEYMOUR GOLDSTAUB be suspended for a period of one year and until he can produce satisfactory medical proof of his fitness to practice law, effective June 30, 1982, and until the further order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that no application for restoration to the practice of law will be favorably considered until respondent has reimbursed the Administrative Office of the Courts for the appropriate administrative costs, including production of transcripts, arising out of these proceedings; and it is further ORDERED that, pending such reimbursement and restoration, respondent is restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and is further directed to comply with all the regulations of the Disciplinary Review Board governing suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys.