Opinion ID: 2093603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Porphy Matter

Text: The Board found that respondent was negligent in handling Mrs. Porphy's matter and that he deceived her about its status. Katz denied these allegations. Although served with a subpoena, Mrs. Porphy never appeared to testify in person at the hearing. [3] Thus, when considering this matter, it must be remembered that there was no evidence submitted against respondent other than the committee's complaint, that was not signed by the complainant. Nonetheless, the Disciplinary Review Board made findings with respect to this case, certain of which are substantiated by the respondent's own admissions. Mrs. Porphy retained the respondent to represent her in a matrimonial matter and signed a complaint drafted by him in July 1978. Respondent has admitted that he did not file and serve the complaint until January 1979, although he told Mrs. Porphy that it was filed and awaiting service in the sheriff's office. Moreover, he failed until March of 1979 to advise her of a settlement offer made in January of that year. Although he advised his client over a number of months that her case would imminently be scheduled for a court date, he had, in fact, never forwarded the amended settlement papers to her husband nor paid the $60 hearing fee. Mrs. Porphy retained another attorney and had some difficulty obtaining the file from respondent. On these admissions, the Board found that the respondent misrepresented the status of the complaint, and advised her that hearing dates had been scheduled when in fact the required $60 hearing fee was never paid by the respondent. The respondent urges that he had known Dianne Porphy and her husband for quite a few years. He was deeply concerned about the fact that Mrs. Porphy had agreed to surrender custody of their eight-year-old daughter to her husband, whom he considered to be a violent person. He concedes that his failure to carry out the proposed settlement of the matter was based upon his own personal judgment about what was in Mrs. Porphy's best interest. He alleges that forwarding the proposed amendment concerning Mrs. Porphy's daughter and paying the $60 hearing fee would have hastened the final divorce and given Mrs. Porphy no time to reflect. Forced to choose between the evil of delaying his client's case and the evil of letting his client make a precipitous decision potentially involving disastrous results for both the client and the child, he claims to have made the better choice both legally and ethically. The Board concluded that the respondent violated DR6-101 and 9-102, failed to carry out his contracts of employment thereby prejudicing his clients in violation of DR7-101(A)(2) and (3), made misrepresentations to Mrs. Porphy, and dishonestly used the Hershes' trust funds in violation of DR1-102(A)(4). We need not wrestle with the weight to be given to Mrs. Porphy's allegations to conclude that the respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by placing his own personal viewpoint above that of his client. He never counselled nor informed his client of his concerns. The respondent had the option of removing himself from the case or moving before the court to obtain the necessary protection for the child and simultaneously for himself. The fact that he felt confronted by a moral dilemma because of his personal judgment that she was acting unwisely in seeking to expedite the termination of her marriage does not excuse his conduct. That his client's desires conflicted with his personal opinion of her best interests is not a valid defense here. His failure zealously to represent her violated DR7-101(A)(1), (2) and (3). In re Rosenthal, 90 N.J. 12 (1982). Upon a review of the Hersh and Porphy matters and in consideration of the respondent's prior disciplinary history, the Disciplinary Review Board recommended that the respondent be disbarred. The respondent has strongly urged that in view of the Disciplinary Review Board's earlier recommendation of lenience, we should be precluded from imposing any greater penalty because, in the respondent's judgment, no clear and convincing proof of new disciplinary violations has been set forth justifying disbarment. We disagree. There is clear and convincing evidence of new misconduct. We cannot help but conclude that the respondent has totally failed to heed the warnings given him heretofore in the disciplinary actions. As noted in our recital of the procedural history, respondent kept totally inadequate records. That has not changed. His conduct in the Hersh matter is totally inconsistent with an understanding of the responsibilities of practice. Similarly, he continued to fail to file complaints, to misrepresent the status of cases to his clients, to fail to zealously represent his clients' interests, to issue bad checks, and to misuse his trust accounts. Although the Disciplinary Review Board was willing to recommend that the respondent be permitted eventually to practice in a structured environment as an employee of a public body or a private law firm, it has disavowed that conclusion and we agree that it must be disavowed. Upon an independent review of the record, the Court is satisfied that the respondent has been proven guilty of unethical conduct in these matters by clear and convincing proof. In the Marano, Woomer, Hersh and Porphy matters, he violated not only DR6-101 by failing to act competently in the handling of the matters and by not pursuing the clients' claims diligently, but also DR7-101(A)(2) and (3) by failing to carry out his contracts of employment and by prejudicing his clients. In the Woomer, Wrede, Gagliardi and Hersh matters, instruments were drawn on his trust account without available client balances. He clearly violated DR9-102(A) by consistently failing to preserve the identity of funds and property of his clients and mingling his personal and business funds with those of his clients. In the Wrede matter, he violated DR9-102(B)(4) by failing to pay over promptly funds that the client was entitled to receive. In the Gagliardi and Moore matters, the conduct of his business affairs involved misrepresentation and deceit in violation of DR1-102(A)(4) and (6). An attorney must act in his business transactions with high standards and his professional obligation reaches all persons who have reason to rely on him even though not strictly clients. In re Lambert, 79 N.J. 74, 77 (1979). In the Marano, Woomer and Porphy matters, the respondent misrepresented the status of pending cases. It is unethical to advise a client of facts that the attorney knows are incorrect. In re Lanza, 24 N.J. 191, 196 (1957). Taken together, respondent's conduct reflects a lack of awareness of the degree of professionalism expected of every member of the bar. Respondent implores us that we not disbar him, citing instances where suspensions have been imposed. But those cases have involved episodes brief in duration and not reflecting such a pervasive pattern of misconduct. Thus, in Matter of Getchius, 88 N.J. 269 (1982), a case involving six different ethics complaints and numerous violations, including misrepresentation to clients, delays in institution of suits, failure to advise clients of the status of their cases, failure to act competently, and deceitful communications, we imposed only a two-year suspension with a requirement of medical proof of fitness to practice prior to return. That case is distinguishable on two grounds. Getchius had suffered from physical and psychological ailments during the two-year period of violations, and his conduct did not involve the inadequate handling of trust funds. In re Barrett, 88 N.J. 450 (1982), involved five matters of misconduct. However, again, the case did not involve trust fund mishandling or the wholesale lack of professionalism manifest in this record. In In re Brown, 88 N.J. 443 (1982), the attorney was disbarred for conduct similar to that here, i.e., issuing bad checks, misusing clients' funds, neglecting clients, misrepresenting facts to clients, but most importantly, misappropriating clients' funds. It may well be that the reason misappropriation of funds is not proved here is because the respondent's records are so totally inadequate that it is impossible to document such a charge one way or the other. Respondent here repeatedly issued bad checks, conduct that is a disorderly persons offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5. Much more serious, however, is his flagrant violation of the responsibility to segregate his clients' funds from his own pursuant to DR9-102(A). Respondent's counsel has ably and forcefully argued his cause and we are entreated to consider the respected position once held by the respondent in his community. However, upon consideration of all the circumstances, we are constrained to conclude that respondent must be disbarred. We further direct the respondent to reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for costs including the cost of production of the transcripts. Respondent's name will be stricken from the roll. For disbarment  Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O'HERN  7. Opposed  None.