Title: In the Matter of Philip M. Morell
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: d-23-04
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: July 19, 2005

(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). After Fink filed a grievance against Morell, in July of 2003, the ethics committee mailed a copy of the complaint by certified and regular mail to Morell s last known address. Morell submitted an unverified answer. Because the answer was not verified, it was returned with a request for a verified answer. Despite that request, Morell failed to comply. The failure to answer was deemed an admission to the allegations in the complaint. Morell was charged with violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross negligence), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), and RPC 4.1(a)(1) (false statement of material fact to third person). On September 6, 2004, the Disciplinary Review Board published a notice advising Morell of its scheduled review of the matter and of the deadline for filing a motion to vacate the default. Again, Morell failed to respond. In October of 2004, the Board found Morell guilty of the charges. In addition, the Board found that although Morell was not charged with a violation of RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), the complaint contained sufficient facts to establish violations of that rule. The Board recommended the imposition of a two-year suspension to run consecutive to the one-year suspension Morell was already serving for other disciplinary infractions. A review of the record revealed that notice of the Board s decision was sent to Morell s office address in Tenafly at a time when he was under suspension. A staff attorney of the Supreme Court Clerk s Office telephoned Morell and informed him of the Board s decision. In December of 2004, the staff attorney also sent a letter to Morell informing him that he could file a petition for review urging the imposition of lesser discipline and/or even vacation of default and remand for a plenary hearing. The letter also instructed Morell to consider In re Kantor in deciding whether to file a response to the Board s decision. Morell did nothing in response to this notice. In April of 2005, this Court ordered Morell to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and to file a response. Again, Morell did nothing by way of a response. HELD: Under these circumstances, Morell s conduct, involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit, reflects his unfitness to practice law; the Court orders his disbarment. Our independent review of the record satisfies us by clear and convincing evidence that Morell has engaged in unethical conduct. The elaborate scheme of deception, beginning with Morell s false statement to his client that a complaint had been filed on his behalf through the misrepresentation that the case had been settled, conclusively establishes Morell s professional misconduct. In addition, we consider whether Morell appeared and participated in the disciplinary proceeding. (In re Kantor concludes that an attorney who declines to appear before this Court to explain his unprofessional conduct and who offers no evidence in mitigation of punishment for disciplinary infractions as serious as those in this case openly displays his unfitness to continue to practice law.) (pp. 6-7) The Board believes that a two-year suspension, not disbarment, is the appropriate sanction. We disagree. The present case is a clear case of dishonesty, fraud, and deceit. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Morell continually fabricated a story to his client to make it appear that his client s interests were protected and that his client would receive a substantial recovery. Morell s conduct displayed a total disregard for an attorney s responsibility to serve his clients and the administration of justice honorably and responsibly. This is not a case of a new attorney who somehow lost sight of his or her ethical responsibilities. Nor is this Morell s first brush with the disciplinary system. Just as important, Morell presented no evidence in mitigation of his dereliction or in support of his fitness to practice law. In fact, he presented no defense at all. Under these circumstances, Morell s conduct, involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit, reflects his unfitness to practice law. Disbarment is the appropriate discipline. (pp. 7-10) So Ordered. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE and RIVERA-SOTO join in this opinion. IN THE MATTER OF PHILIP M. MORELL, An Attorney at Law Argued May 23, 2005 Decided July 19, 2005 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. Respondent did not appear. PER CURIAM [Id. at 57 (internal citations and quotations omitted).] In addition, we consider whether the respondent appeared and participated in the disciplinary proceeding. Kantor, supra, 180 N.J. at 233 (concluding [a]n attorney who declines to appear before this Court to explain his unprofessional conduct and who offers no evidence in mitigation of punishment for disciplinary infractions as serious as those in this case openly displays his unfitness to continue to practice law ). In the present case, the Board believed that a two-year suspension, not disbarment, was the appropriate sanction. We disagree. [A]ttorney misconduct that undermines the integrity of the administration of justice may warrant disbarment. In re Kornreich, 149 N.J. 346, 365 (1997) (citations omitted). Moreover, inasmuch as respondent failed to cooperate, failed to respond to the request for a verified answer, and failed to offer evidence in mitigation, disbarment is the appropriate sanction. Respondent s conduct is similar to that presented in Kornreich. In that case, the respondent was charged with motor-vehicular offenses arising from a car accident. Id. at 348. As a result of the respondent s false statement that her full-time babysitter was the driver of the car at the time of the accident, the charges were dismissed against her and filed against the babysitter. When the respondent s scheme was uncovered, the charges were dismissed against the babysitter. Ibid. Criminal charges were then filed against the respondent and were later dismissed after she completed a pretrial intervention program. Id. at 349. The respondent also was charged with multiple ethics violations involving her dishonesty and misrepresentation. The Board found her guilty and recommended a one-year suspension. Ibid. We disagreed with that sanction and, despite our recognition that disbarment would generally be appropriate in such circumstances, we concluded that the respondent s mitigating evidence of her youth and inexperience justified our withholding the ultimate sanction of disbarment. Id. at 370-71. Instead, we imposed a suspension for a period of three years. Id. at 372. In In re Edson, 108 N.J. 464, 465 (1987), the respondent was charged with engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and fraud. Those charges arose from the respondent s fabrication of an extrapolation defense in a prosecution for violation of the driving while intoxicated statute. Ibid. The majority of the Board recommended that the respondent be suspended for three years, while a four-member minority recommended disbarment. Id. at 471. We agreed with the minority and disbarred the respondent, noting that [t]here could hardly be a plainer case of dishonesty touching the administration of justice and arising out of the practice of law. Id. at 473. The present case is a clear case of dishonesty, fraud, and deceit. The undisputed evidence demonstrates that respondent continually fabricated a story to his client to make it appear that the client s interests were protected and that the client would receive a substantial recovery. Respondent s conduct displayed a total disregard for an attorney s responsibility to serve [his] clients and the administration of justice honorably and responsibly. In re Matthews, 94 N.J. 59, 77 (1983). This is not a case of a new attorney who somehow lost sight of his or her ethical responsibilities. Nor is this respondent s first brush with the disciplinary system. Just as important, unlike Kornreich, where the respondent presented evidence in mitigation, respondent presented no evidence in mitigation of his dereliction or in support of his fitness to practice law. Kantor, supra, 180 N.J. at 232. In fact, respondent presented no defense at all. Under these circumstances, respondent s conduct, involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit, reflects his unfitness to practice law. We order the disbarment of respondent. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in this opinion. IN THE MATTER OF : O R D E R PHILIP M. MORELL, : AN ATTORNEY AT LAW : (Attorney No. 035791188) : It is ORDERED that PHILIP M. MORELL of NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1988, be disbarred and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by PHILIP M. MORELL pursuant to Rule 1:21-6 be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that PHILIP M. MORELL comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further ORDERED that PHILIP M. MORELL be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further ORDERED that PHILIP M. MORELL reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs. WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 18th day of July, 2005. CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT /S/ Stephen W. Townsend NO. D-23 SEPTEMBER TERM 2004 APPLICATION FOR DISPOSITION Order to Show Cause Why Respondent Should Not be Disbarred or Otherwise Disciplined IN THE MATTER OF PHILIP M. MORELL, An Attorney at Law DECIDED July 19, 2005 OPINION BY Per Curiam CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY