Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Citation: 109 N.J. 84, 533 A.2d 704
Docket Number: N/A
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: November 20, 1987

109 N.J. 84 (1987) 533 A.2d 704 IN THE MATTER OF NORMAN J. CHIDIAC, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued September 14, 1987. Decided November 20, 1987. Richard J. Engelhardt, Assistant Ethics Counsel, argued the cause on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. William F. Rabbat, argued the case for respondent (Rabbat &amp; Rabbat, attorneys). PER CURIAM. This matter arises out of respondent's forgery and delivery to a bank of an inheritance tax waiver. After the Attorney General determined not to proceed with a criminal prosecution, the District XI Ethics Committee (the Committee) returned a presentment on August 15, 1984. While the matter was proceeding through the disciplinary system, two additional complaints were filed against respondent. We are informed that the investigation of those matters could take six months. In its decision of February 18, 1987, the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) recommended that respondent be suspended indefinitely, *85 pending resolution of those complaints. Three members voted to disbar. We agree with the recommendation of the DRB. In its decision, the DRB made the following factual findings: Our independent review of the record leads us to the same conclusion. Based on its factual findings, the DRB reached the following conclusion and recommendation: As the DRB found, we have suspended attorneys who have forged documents, even when they have not profited from their misconduct. Other cases of forgery have resulted in the imposition of varying periods of suspension. In In re McNally, 81 N.J. 304 (1979), an attorney who forged the name of the county sheriff on a deed of foreclosure to conceal the attorney's failure to file necessary foreclosure papers was suspended for two years, and in In re Yacavino, 100 N.J. 50 (1985), an attorney who forged two court orders in an adoption proceeding was suspended for three years. Finally, in In re Fleisher, 66 N.J. 398 (1975), we deferred suspension of an attorney who delivered a fictitious divorce judgment to his client. The attorney was receiving regular psychiatric treatment during the ethics proceedings, and we entered an order indefinitely suspending him pending the continued psychotherapy. The question before us is not whether respondent committed an ethical infraction. He admits as much. Rather, the issue is the determination of the sanction to be imposed for the infraction committed. That determination is complicated because the unrelated pending charges cannot be presented to the District XI Ethics Committee for several months. We are disinclined to disbar respondent for the present offense, and we shall be *88 better able to determine the appropriate sanction after the completion of the proceedings involving the other charges. Like the DRB, we believe the appropriate discipline in the present case is to suspend respondent pending the outcome of the two other disciplinary matters. To assure a prompt disposition of those matters, we direct that they be accelerated. In the meantime, respondent is suspended from the practice of law on an indefinite basis subject to the further order of this Court. Respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs, including the costs of transcripts. So ordered. For suspension Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN 7. Opposed None. It is ORDERED that NORMAN J. CHIDIAC of PATERSON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, be suspended from the practice of law on an indefinite basis until further order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that NORMAN J. CHIDIAC reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs; and it is further ORDERED that NORMAN J. CHIDIAC be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further ORDERED that NORMAN J. CHIDIAC comply with Administrative Guideline Number 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended attorneys.