Title: In Re Friedland

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

95 N.J. 170 (1984) 470 A.2d 3 IN THE MATTER OF DAVID FRIEDLAND, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued May 9, 1983. Decided January 31, 1984. Colette A. Coolbaugh, Secretary, argued the cause for complainant Disciplinary Review Board. *171 Brian W. Shaughnessy argued the cause for respondent. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary proceeding arises out of a presentment summarized by the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB): The DRB report of the proceedings continues: Based upon the preceding findings, the DRB concluded: This Court had temporarily suspended respondent pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Upon receipt of the DRB report, we issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. On the return *173 date of the order to show cause, respondent's counsel requested a remand to the DRB to prove mitigating circumstances "that bear upon the appropriate discipline to be imposed considering the nature of the offense." Thereafter, the DRB scheduled the matter on three occasions between June and October 1983. Respondent submitted no proof of mitigating facts; instead, he merely requested an adjournment of each hearing. Consequently, on November 22, 1983, the DRB confirmed its earlier findings. Respondent has submitted no response to this Court. As the DRB noted, respondent was suspended previously in a separate matter for six months. At the time of the present violation, respondent was serving as a member of the New Jersey Senate. In some cases, public service may mitigate the sanction for unethical conduct of an attorney. In re Stout, 75 N.J. 321, 325 (1978); In re Sears, 71 N.J. 175, 199-200 (1976). Under the circumstances of this case, however, respondent's service does not equate with dedication to the commonweal. Rather, his misconduct reflects a disregard for the public trust. Our independent review of the facts leads us to conclude that the factual findings of the DRB are correct. We adopt those findings and the recommendation of the DRB that respondent be disbarred. Respondent shall reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for administrative costs, including the preparation of transcripts. For disbarment Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI 6. Opposed None. It is ORDERED that DAVID FRIEDLAND of JERSEY CITY be disbarred and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further *174 ORDERED that DAVID FRIEDLAND be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for administrative costs, including the preparation of transcripts; and it is further ORDERED that respondent comply with all the regulations of the Disciplinary Review Board governing suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys. [1] The charge actually was for endeavoring to influence a witness, not a grand juror, a distinction that DRB stated subsequently "does not in any way impact on" its recommendation for disbarment. We agree.