Opinion ID: 2325510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Augelli Matter

Text: This complaint originates from a matrimonial proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, in which the complainant was represented by the respondent and the complainant's former husband was represented by another. The matrimonial action ended with a settlement entered into in open court and a judgment for divorce on behalf of the complainant's former husband. The dissatisfied litigant filed ethics charges against respondent. The primary issues raised by the complaint were dismissed upon recommendation of the District IX Ethics Committee. The panel, however, noted that the respondent testified at the District IX ethics hearing that he mailed an affidavit to the complainant for her signature. The Committee concluded that respondent took her jurat out of her presence after she had mailed it back to him and that this action violated DR 1-102(A)(1), (4), (5) and (6). In the Augelli and Cassidy matters, the facts are undisputed. The respondent himself brought up the Augelli matter by testifying to the occurrence. Respondent's view is that this is more a matter of form than of substance since he could have used a certification rather than a jurat to achieve the same effect. He further asserted the hardship it would have been for his client to come to the office. In re Surgent, 79 N.J. 529 (1979) states our intention to disabuse the bar of any lingering notion that the plain and unmistakable requirements regarding the execution of jurats and taking of acknowledgements need not be met in all respects. Id. at 532. Compare In re Breidt and Lubetkin, 84 N.J. Eq. 222 (Ch. 1915) with In re Conti, 75 N.J. 114 (1977); and see In re Mocco, 75 N.J. 313, 317 (1978). Had respondent taken the effort, he could have had his client sign a certification in lieu of oath. R. 1:4-4(b). In affixing his client's signature to an affidavit under these circumstances, respondent manifested a disrespect for the legal process that is inconsistent with acceptable professional conduct. In re Conti, supra, 75 N.J. at 117 (1977). Protestations that he did not know or think the conduct was proscribed cannot serve as an excuse. The very language of the jurat put respondent on notice that his client had to appear in person before the oath taker. In re Mocco, 75 N.J. 313, 317 (1978).