Title: IMO Robert E. Riva, An Attorney at Law

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). PER CURIAM This is an attorney disciplinary matter. Respondent, Robert Riva, was retained by Robert and Janet Palceski to represent them and their company in the defense of an employment practices claim threatened by a former employee. The disgruntled employee hired an attorney in 1992. However, suit was never filed by that attorney following his conversations with Riva, who advised him that the Palceskis would pursue a counterclaim against the employee for financial improprieties should the employee choose to file suit. The employee retained another attorney. In January 1993, the new attorney served a summons and complaint on the Palceskis, who again retained respondent. Thereafter, although respondent obtained a stipulation to extend the time for filing an answer to the complaint, he never did so. He claimed that he did not do so because his conversation with the employee's attorney led him to believe that she would voluntarily dismiss the matter. However, he told the Palceskis that he had filed the answering papers and that because he had heard nothing further from opposing counsel, the case would just go away. Thereafter, in May 1993, after several unsuccessful attempts to telephone Riva, the employee's attorney learned that an answer to the complaint had never been filed. She therefore obtained an order entering default against the Palceskis. Respondent denied having received a copy of that order. Subsequently, in September 1993, the court entered default judgment against the Palceskis for $1.7 million. While a constable was at his home seizing the trucks, tools, and bank accounts of the company (and seeking to seize the personal assets of the Palceskis), Robert Palceski telephoned Riva. Riva assured him that he would go to court the next day to have their assets returned to them. When Riva went to court two days later, he was able to obtain the release only of the company's trucks and tools. Although he later filed a motion to vacate the default in full, the trial court found those papers to be deficient. Thereafter, from September through December 1993, Riva told the Palceskis that he was consulting with other attorneys and conducting research on their defense. By the time that the court considered Riva's motion again in December, the Palceskis had retained another attorney. When Riva finally turned over the file to the new attorney, the only papers in there were the motion to vacate the default with its accompanying deficient certification, a cover letter to the employee's attorney with the draft stipulation extending time to answer, and the draft answer and counterclaim. The Palceskis later settled the suit by payment to the employee of $11,500. A majority of the DRB agreed with the District VB Ethics Committee (DEC) that Riva's conduct amounted to gross neglect, in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.1(a), and a lack of diligence, in violation of RPC 1.3. The majority found a reprimand to be the appropriate form of discipline for his misconduct. A minority of the DRB, however, considered a term of suspension to be more appropriate given Riva's continuous misrepresentations to his clients about the status of the matter and the great financial and emotional injury suffered by the clients. Pursuant to R. 1:20-16(b), the Supreme Court issued an order requiring Riva to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. HELD: Riva's misconduct, amounting to violations of RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 1.3, while serious, does not demonstrate dishonesty, deceit, or contempt for law, but rather an aberrational neglect of his responsibilities as an attorney and warrants the imposition of a reprimand. 1. When an attorney demonstrates a pattern of neglect and misrepresentation to clients, a period of suspension is ordinarily warranted. However, in light of Riva's unblemished record for almost two decades, he does not fall within the end of the spectrum of that misconduct that warrants suspension. (pp. 9-10) 2. Although respondent's conduct was inexcusable in that he had compounded his initial neglect in not filing an answer with his later neglect and misrepresentation concerning his efforts to vacate the default judgment, his misconduct is related to one client transaction and, absent evidence of a disregard for the ethics system, warrants the imposition of a reprimand. (pp. 10-12) 3. Riva's conduct does not demonstrate dishonesty, deceit, or contempt for law, but rather an aberrational neglect of his responsibilities as an attorney. (pp. 12-13) Riva is REPRIMANDED and is to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in the Court's opinion. IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT E. RIVA, An Attorney at Law. Argued September 28, 1998 -- Decided February 5, 1999 On an Order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. Lee A. Gronikowski, Deputy Ethics Counsel, argued the cause on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. Robert E. Riva argued the cause pro se. PER CURIAM This attorney discipline matter arises from a Report and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) that respondent be publicly reprimanded. Three members of the DRB concluded that a public reprimand would be insufficient discipline and recommended a three-month suspension. The majority recommendation is based on findings of the District VB Ethics Committee (DEC), concurred in by the DRB, that respondent had been guilty of gross neglect, a violation of RPC 1.1(a), and a lack of diligence, a violation of RPC 1.3. The misconduct involved the failure to file a timely answer to a complaint against his clients and his subsequent failure to act with necessary diligence to vacate a default entered on the complaint. Respondent also failed to communicate with his clients in a timely manner and misrepresented the status of the matter. Respondent does not deny the essential facts but asserts that the conduct resulted from a misunderstanding that his adversary had withdrawn the complaint and his failure to have received notice of the proposed default judgment. Respondent contends that the Court should not follow the DRB's recommendation that he be publicly reprimanded. Based on our independent review of the record, we find clear and convincing evidence that respondent engaged in conduct proscribed by RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 1.3, and that a public reprimand is warranted. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, and COLEMAN join in this opinion. IN THE MATTER OF : O R D E R ROBERT E. RIVA, : AN ATTORNEY AT LAW : It is ORDERED that ROBERT E. RIVA of SHORT HILLS, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1979, is reprimanded; and it is further ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent's file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter. WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 5th day of February, 1999. /s/ Stephen W. Townsend CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT NO. D-200 Decided February 5, 1999 Order returnable Opinion by PER CURIAM