Title: Matter of Herman.

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

108 N.J. 66 (1987) 527 A.2d 868 IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN ALLEN HERMAN, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued June 23, 1987. Decided July 17, 1987. *67 Richard J. Engelhardt, Assistant Ethics Counsel, argued the cause on behalf of Office of Attorney Ethics. Ronald Busch argued the case for respondent (Busch & Busch, attorneys). PER CURIAM. This matter arises from a report of the Disciplinary Review Board (Board or DRB) recommending that respondent, Steven Allan Herman, be suspended from the practice of law for a minimum period of three years from the time of his temporary suspension. The matter came before the Board on a motion for final discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics based upon respondent's guilty plea to a charge of sexual assault in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2b. Respondent does not challenge the DRB's finding that he engaged in conduct that adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law, contrary to DR 1-102(A)(3), and the only issue is the appropriate discipline to be imposed. The DRB summarized the relevant facts as follows: At the time of the offense, respondent was associated with a law firm in East Brunswick, New Jersey. Within days of his arrest, he voluntarily terminated his relationship with that firm and ceased practicing law. On November 20, 1985, this Court formally suspended respondent from the practice of law pending the outcome of these proceedings. In re Herman, 101 N.J. 26 (1985). With respect to the appropriate discipline, the DRB stated: We share the views of the DRB that respondent's offense was serious. We note, however, that respondent has cooperated with law enforcement authorities and that he voluntarily suspended his practice of law on or about September 18, 1984, over a year before the date of his formal suspension. The primary purpose of discipline is not to punish the attorney, a consideration more appropriate to criminal law, In re Addonizio, 95 N.J. 121, 124-25 (1984), but "to preserve the confidence of the public in the integrity and trustworthiness of lawyers * * *," In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451, 456 (1979). Although respondent's misconduct did not directly relate to the practice of law, the DRB was correct in concluding that it adversely reflected on respondent's fitness to practice law. Furthermore, a lawyer has an obligation to adhere to a high standard of conduct even though his activities are not related to the practice of law. In re Franklin, 71 N.J. 425, 429 (1976). In a similar case, In re Addonizio, supra, 95 N.J. 121, we concluded that the seriousness of the attorney's misconduct and the protection of the public required a three-month suspension of an attorney who pled guilty to the fourth-degree crime of sexual contact in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C-14-3(b). Here, respondent pled to a more serious offense, a second-degree crime. Nonetheless, respondent voluntarily suspended himself from the practice of law nearly three years ago and his conduct since his arrest suggests his awareness of his problem and his willingness to receive appropriate treatment. On balance, we believe the appropriate discipline should be a three-year suspension retroactive to the time that respondent voluntarily suspended himself from the practice of law, September 18, 1984. As a condition to his readmission, respondent should continue with his psychiatric counseling until further order of this Court. Furthermore, his reinstatement as an attorney is subject to a report by a psychiatrist appointed by *71 the DRB indicating that respondent is able to resume the practice of law and that it is unlikely that he will engage again in the kind of conduct that gave rise to these proceedings. Respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs, including the costs of transcripts. So ordered. WILENTZ, C.J., and CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN, JJ., join in this opinion. The Disciplinary Review Board having recommended that STEVEN ALLAN HERMAN of East Brunswick, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1978, be suspended from the practice of law for three years, and good cause appearing; IT IS ORDERED that STEVEN ALLAN HERMAN is suspended from the practice of law for three years and until the further Order of the Court, retroactive to September 18, 1984, the date on which respondent voluntarily withdrew from the practice of the law; and it is further ORDERED that as a condition of restoration and until the further Order of the Court, respondent shall continue to receive psychiatric counseling; and it is further ORDERED that respondent's restoration shall also be conditioned upon the receipt of a report by a psychiatrist appointed by the Disciplinary Review Board indicating that respondent is able to resume the practice of law and that it is unlikely that he will engage again in the kind of conduct that gave rise to these proceedings; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall continue to comply with Regulation 23 governing suspended attorneys; and it is further *72 ORDERED that respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter. WITNESS, the Honorable Robert N. Wilentz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 17th day of July, 1987.