Title: IMO THE APPLICATION OF STEVEN B. JACKMAN FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

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). LeVecchia, J., writing for a unanimous Court. This matter involves the fitness to practice requirement for admission to the New Jersey bar. Rule 1:25. The specific issues are whether Steven B. Jackman, an applicant for admission to the bar of this State, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while he was employed as an associate attorney in a New Jersey law firm prior to sitting for the New Jersey bar examination and whether that unauthorized practice renders him unfit to be admitted to practice. Jackman graduated from Harvard Law School and was licensed as an attorney in Massachusetts in 1985, where he was employed by a Boston law firm until 1991. In August 1991, Jackman became employed as an associate at the New Jersey law firm of Sills Cummis Radin Teschman Epstein & Gross (Sills Cummis). Although Jackman applied to sit for the New Jersey bar examination to be administered in February 1992, he withdrew from the exam at the request of the managing partner of Sills Cummis because his work was needed in connection with an unusually large transaction. The partner acknowledged that it would be a good idea for Jackman to take the bar exam at some point, but told Jackman it was not necessary for him to take the New Jersey bar exam to practice corporate law in New Jersey. Jackman decided to see whether the firm intended to make him a partner before sitting for the exam. He was considered for partnership each year from 1995 through 1998, at which time he left Sills Cummis without having sat for the bar exam. While employed at Sills Cummis, where he became a senior associate, Jackman handled mergers and acquisitions and general corporate law matters. He prepared and signed legal documents, counseled clients, and negotiated with other attorneys on behalf of his clients. He never appeared in court and never signed pleadings in any litigated matters. In 1993, Jackman placed his Massachusetts license to practice on inactive status, a status he understood to apply to Massachusetts attorneys who were practicing in jurisdictions other than Massachusetts. He remained a member of the Massachusetts bar in good standing. During his nearly seven years at Sills Cummis, Jackman never asked the New Jersey Board of Bar Examiners whether he had to have a New Jersey license to practice. When he left Sills Cummis in April 1998 and went to work for a New York law firm, the new firm told him he had to sit for the New York bar exam. Jackman sat for the New York and New Jersey bar exams in July 1999. Jackman's employment history was brought out in the character-certification process conducted for admission to the New Jersey bar. After a hearing, a panel of the Supreme Court Committee on Character found that in his practice at Sills Cummis, Jackman had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and so recommended that Jackman's certification for admission be denied. A review panel of the Committee on Character agreed. The Supreme Court ordered Jackman to show cause why his admission to the bar should not be withheld for failure to meet the requirements of good character and fitness for admission. Held: By practicing transactional law in New Jersey for nearly seven years without a New Jersey license to practice, Jackman engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, which reflects negatively on his fitness to practice, and for which his certification for admission to the New Jersey bar shall be delayed until January 2, 2001. 1. To protect the public and ensure the proper, orderly and efficient administration of justice, New Jersey requires that only attorneys authorized to practice law in this state perform legal activities, including litigation and the counseling of clients. Good moral character, honesty and reliability are characteristics required for admission to practice. (pp. 6-9) 2. Jackman's practice of transactional law at Sills Cummis without a New Jersey license was in direct conflict with Rule 1:21-1(a), which specifies who may practice law in New Jersey. His circumstances do not satisfy any of the limited situations in which one lacking a plenary license to practice in this state may render legal services here. His practice was unauthorized. (pp. 9-11) 3. The duty to be knowledgeable about and compliant with bar admission and practice requirements is a personal one. Jackman's failure to ensure that he complied with the conditions for practice cannot be excused by his misplaced reliance on the advice given him by the firm's managing partner about the need for a New Jersey license. (p. 17) 4. The Court refers Jackman's assertion that there are numerous other attorneys in New Jersey practicing as he did to the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law for review and appropriate action. (pp. 18-19) 5. Jackman's failure to abide by the rules governing bar admission and practice reflected negatively on his fitness to practice; the Committee on Character exercised sound judgment in determining that his unauthorized practice of law related directly to the certification of his fitness to practice. (pp. 19-21) 6. Because Jackman has been waiting since July 1999 to be certified as fit and because the circumstances of this case are such that proof of rehabilitation is not required, the certification of fitness to practice is to issue effective January 2, 2001. (p. 21) The Recommendation of the Committee on Character is ADOPTED as MODIFIED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ, and ASSOCIATE JUSTICES COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE LaVECCHIA's opinion. JUSTICE STEIN did not participate. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY E- 110 September Term 1999 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF STEVEN B. JACKMAN FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR. ________________________ Argued September 12, 2000 -- Decided December 1, 2000 On an Order to Show Cause why certification of the applicant for admission to the bar should not be withheld. Janet Brownlee Miller, Deputy Ethics Counsel, argued the cause on behalf of the Committee on Character. Justin P. Walder, argued the cause for respondent (Walder, Sondak & Brogan, attorneys; Mr. Walder and John A. Brogan, on the brief. The opinion of the Court was delivered by LaVECCHIA, J. This Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Steven B. Jackman's admission to the bar should not be withheld for failure to meet the requirements of good character and fitness for admission. In its Report and Recommendation, a Regulation ( RG ) 303 Panel of the Committee on Character found that Jackman had been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in New Jersey from August 1991 until April 1998 when he was employed as a Senior Associate at the law firm of Sills Cummis Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross, P.A., without a license to practice law in New Jersey. The RG 303 Panel recommended that Jackman's certification for admission be denied and the RG 304 Review Panel agreed. The Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to our supervisory authority over the Committee on Character, R. 1:25, which derives in turn from our constitutional power to govern the practice of law. N.J. Const. art. VI, 2, 3. We now hold that Jackman did engage in the unauthorized practice of law from 1991 to 1998, that the nature of his practice did not obviate the need to be licensed in New Jersey, and that he was responsible for that conduct notwithstanding his reliance on the advice of the managing partner of the New Jersey law firm in which he was employed. We agree with the RG 304 Review Panel that Jackman's unauthorized practice of law reflects negatively on the candidate's fitness for admission. However, Jackman's certification for admission already has been delayed since July 1999. We hold, therefore, that delaying Mr. Jackman's certification for admission until January 2, 2001 shall serve sufficiently to underscore to the candidate the need to appreciate and abide by the laws, rules, and procedures governing attorneys admitted to the bar of this State. NO. E-110 APPLICATION OF Decided December 1, 2000 Order returnable September 12, 2000 Opinion by Justice LaVecchia