Opinion ID: 2379892
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Eckrich Matter

Text: Respondent represented her husband, Joseph C. Eckrich, on a traffic summons in a municipal court matter. Before respondent was retained, Eckrich failed to appear in municipal court, resulting in the issuance of a warrant for his arrest. Respondent succeeded in getting the warrant vacated. Thereafter, the municipal court sent notices to respondent and Eckrich advising them of the trial scheduled for September 15, 1999. Respondent and Eckrich did not appear on that trial date or notify the court that they would not appear. As a result, a second warrant was issued for Eckrich's arrest. Two weeks later, respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law for one month on an unrelated matter, and did nothing further on Eckrich's case until her reinstatement. Respondent claimed that she did not inform Eckrich about her suspension because she believed that she was forbidden under Rule 1:20-20 from speaking to him about the case until she was reinstated. The DRB dismissed as contrived respondent's explanation for not informing her husband about her suspension. The DRB also found that [a]s a direct result of respondent's carelessness, a second warrant was issued for Eckrich's arrest and three court appearances were brushed aside. In this case, for no sound reason, a simple traffic ticket was not resolved for almost a year. The DRB determined that respondent violated RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 3.3(a)(1) (false statement of material fact or law to tribunal), RPC 8.4(c) (misrepresentation), and Rule 1:20-20(b)(11) (failing to advise municipal court and her clients of her suspension).
On March 12, 2004, the DRB recommended that respondent be suspended for six months for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct arising out of two separate complaints that were heard by the DEC.