Title: Matter of Robinovitz
Citation: 102 N.J. 57, 505 A.2d 595
Docket Number: N/A
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: March 18, 1986

102 N.J. 57 (1986) 505 A.2d 595 IN THE MATTER OF HARRY J. ROBINOVITZ, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. March 18, 1986. The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court recommending that HARRY J. ROBINOVITZ, of SOMERVILLE, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1939, be deemed eligible to apply for restoration to the practice of law, subject to certain conditions, and good cause appearing; *59 It is ORDERED that the findings of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted; and it is further ORDERED that HARRY J. ROBINOVITZ may make application for restoration to the practice of law subject to his presentation of medical evidence that he is physically and mentally competent to practice law and subject further to the Disciplinary Review Board's approval of an attorney or law firm who will supervise daily respondent's practice for a period of one year and until further order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that the April 2, 1979, Order of this Court suspending HARRY R. ROBINOVITZ shall remain in effect until further order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall continue to comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said HARRY J. ROBINOVITZ as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further ORDERED that HARRY J. ROBINOVITZ reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs. This matter is before the Board based on a stipulated presentment filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics. The stipulation, signed by the parties on September 24, 1984, provides as follows: By letter dated December 28, 1984 this Board remanded the presentment to the District Ethics Committee for hearing. The Committee was informed that the Respondent was psychiatrically examined on February 5, 1985 to determine his competency to sign the stipulation. The psychiatrist concluded that Respondent was mentally competent to agree to the stipulation. The Ethics Committee conducted a hearing on June 6, 1985. Respondent stated that he had voluntarily signed the stipulation and that he agreed with the facts contained therein. Upon a review of the stipulated record, the Board finds by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed unethical conduct. As a general rule, the parties are held to their stipulations and the consequences thereof, Negrotti v. Negrotti, 98 N.J. 428, 432 (1985), and a reviewing agency is bound by the stipulated facts. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Riefolo Const. Co. Inc., 81 N.J. 514, 523, (1980). Respondent was temporarily suspended in 1979 for failing to answer ethics complaints then pending against him and *62 failing to produce his attorney books and records. To date he has never filed the required answers and never produced his records. What emerges from the conduct of his practice is The Board finds that Respondent's record keeping was inadequate and contrary to R. 1:21-6, DR 9-102. Respondent failed to carry out contracts of employment, DR 7-102(A)(2). His failure to properly represent his clients and failure to communicate with them constituted gross negligence, DR 6-101(A)(1), and a pattern of negligence, DR 6-102(A)(2). Respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice, DR 1-102(A)(5). See Matter of Getchius, 88 N.J. 269, 276 (1982); In re Palmieri, 75 N.J. 488, 489 (1978). Respondent's "transgressions reflect on the competency and integrity of entire Bar." In re Barry 90 N.J. 286, 291 (1982). The purpose of discipline is not to punish the offender but to protect the public from the attorney who does not meet the standards of responsibility of his profession. In re Goldstaub, 90 N.J. 1, 5 (1982). Mitigating factors are relevant in determining the appropriate discipline. See In re Hughes 90 N.J. 32, 36 (1982). By entering into the stipulation, Respondent has acknowledged that his conduct was improper. Admission of wrongdoing is a mitigating factor. In re Rosenthal, 90 N.J. 12, 17 (1982). Under the circumstances presented, a seven-member majority of the Board recommends that the length of Respondent's temporary suspension, over six years, be deemed appropriate discipline. See Matter of Templeton, 99 N.J. 365, 376 (1985). Although Respondent has been a member of the Bar since 1939, he did not actively practice law until the mid 1970's. Respondent's history of client neglect and disregard of his professional responsibilities raise grave concerns over the propriety of his *63 unsupervised return to the practice of law. The Board, therefore, recommends that if Respondent's license to practice is restored that he be required to practice for at least one year under the daily supervision of another attorney or law firm to be approved by this Board. See In re Stern, 92 N.J. 611, 621 (1983). The Board majority further recommends that Respondent be psychiatrically examined to determine that he is mentally competent to practice law. Two members of the Board would continue Respondent's suspension indefinitely. The Board further recommends that Respondent be required to reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs. [*] ethics complaint references omitted