Title: Matter of Huber

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

101 N.J. 1 (1985) 499 A.2d 220 IN THE MATTER OF KARL R. HUBER, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. October 21, 1985. The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that KARL R. HUBER, of NEWARK, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1965, be disbarred, and good cause appearing; *2 It is ORDERED that the findings of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted and respondent is disbarred, effective immediately; and it is further ORDERED that KARL R. HUBER be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further ORDERED that KARL R. HUBER reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs; and it is further ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys. This matter is before the Board on a Motion for Final Discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics. This is based on Respondent's criminal conviction in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York of conspiracy, false statements, mail fraud, perjury and racketeering, all in violation of federal law. Respondent and three others were indicted in a multi-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in 1978. The charges pertained to Respondent's activities concerning Hospital Equipment Company (HEC), a New Jersey hospital supply house, and its divisions and corporate successors. Respondent and his father obtained control of HEC in October, 1971. HEC had entered into a number of cost-plus contracts with hospitals in New York and New Jersey for the sale of hospital and surgical supplies, furniture and equipment. Respondent was involved in and managed the hospital supply business on a day-to-day basis, and was kept apprised in detail about new contracts as they were being made. The record established that: Following a ten-week trial, a federal jury convicted Respondent of one count of conspiracy, nineteen counts of making false statements, eight counts of mail fraud and one count each of perjury and racketeering. He was sentenced to a total of four years imprisonment, was fined $5,000 on the conspiracy count and on each of the false statement counts, and $1,000 on each of the mail fraud counts, a total of $108,000. For his conviction of racketeering, the court directed conditional forfeiture of Respondent's enterprise which gave Respondent the option to redeem his corporations by paying within six months cash or other property having a value of $100,000. His conviction *4 was later affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Ibid. The trial of Respondent's father had been severed because of ill health. The other codefendants, Conroy and Eckert, had pleaded guilty prior to trial. Respondent had been temporarily suspended from the practice of law on March 27, 1979, following his federal convictions. The Office of Attorney Ethics now requests this Board to recommend to the Supreme Court that Respondent be disbarred. A judgment of conviction is conclusive evidence of Respondent's guilt. R. 1:20-6(b)(1). Thus, there is no need to make an independent examination of the underlying facts to ascertain guilt. In re Bricker, 90 N.J. 6, 10 (1982). The only issue to be determined is the extent of final discipline to be imposed. R. 1:20-6(b)(2)(ii). Respondent's conviction establishes he had engaged in illegal conduct that had adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law. DR 1-102(A)(3) and (6). Respondent was admitted to the bar in 1965. He was an honors graduate of a prestigious university in this state and of a prominent law school. He was involved in a continuing fraud against the taxpayers of this nation. His actions cannot be tolerated. It is well settled in this state that an attorney is obligated to adhere to the high standards of conduct required of a member of the bar even though his activities did not involve the practice of law. In re Suchanoff, 93 N.J. 226, 230-231 (1983); In re Franklin, 71 N.J. 425, 429 (1976). The Board finds that Respondent's conviction of perjury demonstrates his unfitness to be a member of the bar of this state. Good moral character is a basic condition for membership in the bar. In re LaDuca, 62 N.J. 133, 140 (1973). His convictions on the other counts reinforce the conclusion that he should be disbarred. In re *5 Friedland, 95 N.J. 167, and 95 N.J. 170 (1984). Accordingly the Board recommends disbarment. The Board further recommends that Respondent be required to reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.