Title: Matter of Wallace
Citation: 104 N.J. 589, 518 A.2d 740
Docket Number: N/A
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1986

104 N.J. 589 (1986) 518 A.2d 740 IN THE MATTER OF GERARD J. WALLACE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued October 20, 1986. Decided December 12, 1986. Colette A. Coolbaugh, Executive Counsel, Disciplinary Review Board, argued the cause for Office of Attorney Ethics. Gerard J. Wallace argued the cause pro se. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary proceeding arises from a presentment filed by the District XI Ethics Committee, which found that the respondent had violated DR 6-101 (handling a legal matter in such a manner as to constitute gross negligence), DR 9-102(C) *590 (failure to keep adequate records as required by Rule 1:21-6), and DR 1-102(A)(3) (engaging in illegal conduct that reflects adversely on his fitness to practice law). The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB or Board) upheld the Ethics Committee's findings that respondent violated DR 6-101 and DR 9-102. However, the Board found that although respondent's conduct reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law in violation of DR 1-102(A)(6), his conduct was not illegal and therefore respondent had not violated DR 1-102(A)(3). In addition, the Board found that respondent's attempt to settle the ethics complaint against him was an attempt to exonerate himself from liability in violation of DR 6-102(A). The DRB recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. The complaint lodged against the respondent involves his handling of the affairs of Mrs. Mary Zorzin, a non-ambulatory elderly woman who lived near respondent's office. Mrs. Zorzin initially approached the respondent about a collection matter against her granddaughter, one of the complainants in this case, and the preparation of a will. However, respondent's handling of these matters does not form the basis of the complaint. Rather, the relevant facts, as set forth by the DRB, are as follows: After reviewing the record, we conclude that the DRB was correct in finding that the respondent's actions were grossly negligent and unethical.[1] He admittedly had limited experience in the preparation of promissory notes. His draftsmanship of this note was seriously deficient. The note did not include a due date, a default or acceleration clause, or even an address for the borrower. *593 Moreover, respondent's conduct after the execution of the note was highly unprofessional. As the DRB explained: It is undisputed that an attorney owes his client a duty to pursue diligently the matters entrusted to him and to exercise the highest degree of fidelity and good faith. Matter of Schwartz, 99 N.J. 510 (1985); Matter of Stein, 97 N.J. 550 (1984); Matter of Dolan, 76 N.J. 1 (1978); Matter of Loring, 73 N.J. 282 (1977). It is not enough simply to follow a client's instructions, for a client cannot foresee or be expected to foresee the great variety of legal problems that may arise. In re Lanza, 65 N.J. 347, 352 (1974). This is especially true where, as here, the client is elderly and infirm and particularly dependent on her attorney's judgment. As this Court has often stated, the goal in disciplinary proceedings is not to punish the attorney, but to preserve public confidence in the legal profession and protect the public from unscrupulous or irresponsible attorneys. In re Kushner, 101 N.J. 397 (1986); In re Goldstaub, 90 N.J. 1 (1982); In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979); In re Stout, 75 N.J. 321 (1978). In this context, respondent's actions are particularly disturbing. As the DRB stated, We also share the DRB's concern about the respondent's attempt to settle the ethics complaint. Such behavior shows extreme indifference to the intent of the Disciplinary Rules. *594 Public confidence in the legal profession would be seriously undermined if we were to permit an attorney to avoid discipline by purchasing the silence of complainants. We therefore agree with the DRB that respondent handled Mrs. Zorzin's affairs in a manner that constituted gross negligence, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(1). He also violated DR 9-102(C) by failing to maintain adequate records pursuant to Rule 1:21-6, and he attempted to limit his liability for his ethical violations contrary to DR 6-102(A). This conduct adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. DR 1-102(A)(6). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the sanction recommended by the DRB is appropriate. We therefore order that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for six months. In addition, respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs. So ordered. For suspension Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN 7. Opposed None. It is ORDERED that GERARD J. WALLACE of CLIFTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective January 5, 1987, and until the further order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that GERARD J. WALLACE reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs; and it is further *595 ORDERED that GERARD J. WALLACE be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further ORDERED that GERARD J. WALLACE comply with Administrative Guideline Number 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys. [1] The respondent claims that he was denied a fair hearing by the Ethics Committee because the presenter and one panel member knew his ex-wife, and because another panel member had been his opposing counsel in a divorce proceeding. He also claims that the subsequent review by the DRB was tainted by the impropriety of the Ethics Committee proceeding. We are convinced, based on our own careful review of the record, that the respondent received a fair hearing, and that there was no misconduct by the presenter, the Ethics Committee or the DRB.