Title: Plaintiff v. Defendant
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: d-131-02
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: December 5, 2003

(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). Gallo admitted in the criminal proceeding that in 1999 and 2000 he had committed acts of nonconsensual sexual contact with four women, three of whom were matrimonial clients of his and one of whom was a self-represented litigant seeking a restraining order against one of Gallo s clients. Two of the offenses occurred in Gallo s law office and the others took place in courthouses. At the plea hearing, Gallo was not required to explain the circumstances or context of his conduct, but merely to admit nonconsensual sexual contact. Gallo admitted placing his hands on the breasts of two of his clients without their consent and to placing the hands of the other client and the self-represented litigant on his groin without their consent. Gallo was sentenced to four concurrent five-year terms of probation and required to obtain psychological counseling and subject himself to random drug and alcohol testing. He was fined $4,000. Other charges were dismissed. The Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) filed with the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) a motion for final discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-13(c)(2) based on Gallo s admissions of guilt in the criminal proceeding. The DRB found that Gallo s guilty pleas established a violation of RPC 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on attorney s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer). The OAE and the Board considered only undisputed facts in the record: respondent s admissions of guilt. The more detailed assertions of Gallo s victims, described by Gallo s counsel as unproven allegations, were not acknowledged in connection with the motion for final discipline. The DRB voted to suspend Gallo from the practice of law for a retroactive period of three years. Three members of the DRB voted for a prospective three-year suspension. The Court ordered Gallo to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. HELD: The Supreme Court's review of an attorney disciplinary matter that is based on a guilty plea in a criminal case is not limited to respondent's admissions at the time of his plea. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Review Board to have a Special Ethics Master develop a record that will address the claims of the victims as well as respondent's answers. The Master will file findings with the DRB, which in turn will file a decision with the Court for its review and disposition. 1. Because the proceedings to discipline Gallo began pursuant to Rule 1:20-13(c)(2) with a motion for final discipline based on Gallo s guilty pleas, there has been no hearing to test the allegations of the victims or to determine the validity of Gallo s defenses. It would not be fair to discipline Gallo on a record that goes beyond his plea admissions unless he has had the opportunity to confront his accusers and present testimony on his own behalf. (pp. 5-6) 2. There are no restrictions on the scope of disciplinary review in a case of an attorney who was not charged with a crime or who was acquitted of a crime, so there is no commonsense or policy justification for imposing such restrictions on the Court in the exercise of its constitutional responsibility to determine the fitness of a lawyer who has pled guilty to a crime. (pp. 6-7) 3. The purpose of the disciplinary review process is to protect the public from unfit lawyers and to promote public confidence in the legal system. In light of the allegations made by the victims regarding Gallo s conduct, a full record is necessary to determine his fitness to practice law. (pp. 8-9) 4. The sexual abuse of a client is unacceptable and grossly incompatible with the standards of professionalism expected of attorneys. Attorneys who sexually molest their clients will be subject to severe disciplinary sanctions. (pp. 9-11) The matter is REMANDED to the Disciplinary Review Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court s opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, VERNIERO, ZAZZALI, and WALLACE join in JUSTICE ALBIN s opinion. JUSTICE LaVECCHIA did not participate. IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN ANDREW GALLO, An Attorney at Law. Argued September 23, 2003 Decided December 5, 2003 On an Order to Show Cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. Richard J. Engelhardt, Counsel to the Director, argued the cause on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. Justin P. Walder argued the cause for respondent (Walder, Hayden &amp; Brogan, attorneys; Mr. Walder, K. Roger Plawker and Shalom D. Stone, on the brief). JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. Public confidence in our legal system demands that attorneys comply with the highest standards of professional conduct. Attorneys who are accused of violating those standards are subject to disciplinary review. The integrity of that process requires a complete evaluation of the evidence and circumstances concerning a lawyer s alleged violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In this case, it appears that the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) and the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) limited their review of respondent s conduct to his statements at a criminal plea hearing in which he admitted to committing four acts of sexual contact, involving three clients and one pro se party-opponent. This matter was referred to the DRB for the imposition of discipline based on respondent s criminal convictions. Respondent s scant admissions at the plea hearing, however, do not give context, background, or a sufficient basis for determining the full gravity of his alleged professional misconduct, particularly given the detailed claims advanced by his victims. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the DRB to convene a hearing before a Special Ethics Master to determine the full nature and extent of respondent s derelictions. IN THE MATTER OF : STEPHEN ANDREW GALLO, : O R D E R AN ATTORNEY AT LAW : (Attorney No. 023451993) : The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-281, concluding that STEPHEN ANDREW GALLO of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1993, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law by consent since March 22, 2001, should be suspended from practice for a period of three years based on respondent s conviction of four counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b); And the Court having concluded that in light of the allegations of the victims of respondent s offenses, it is necessary to establish a more detailed record on which to determine respondent s fitness to practice law; And good cause appearing; It is ORDERED that this matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Review Board to convene a hearing before a Special Ethics Master, who shall develop a detailed record in respect of respondent s alleged misconduct and shall report to the Disciplinary Review Board credibility assessments and findings based on the evidence presented; and it is further ORDERED that the Disciplinary Review Board shall review the findings of the Special Ethics Master and shall file with the Court the decision of the Board as to final discipline; and it is further ORDERED that STEPHEN ANDREW GALLO shall remain suspended from the practice of law until the further Order of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that respondent shall continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and shall continue to comply with Rule 1:20-20. WITNESS, the Honorable Deborah T. Poritz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 5th day of December, 2003. /s/ Stephen W. Townsend CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT NO. D-131 SEPTEMBER TERM 2002 APPLICATION FOR DISPOSITION Order to Show Cause Why Respondent Should Not be Disbarred or Otherwise Disciplined IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN ANDREW GALLO, An Attorney at Law. DECIDED December 5, 2003 OPINION BY Justice Albin CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY