Opinion ID: 2283496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: gallucio complaint

Text: Respondent was retained by one Josephine Gallucio in or about the month of June 1977 to represent her with regard to two traffic citations received in the Borough of Beach Haven, New Jersey. The respondent, by letter of June 28, 1977, advised the Municipal Court of the Borough of Beach Haven of his representation of Ms. Gallucio and thereafter continued to correspond with the Court with regard to the pending hearing until August 1, 1978. Although advised that bench warrants had been issued for his client's arrest, the respondent took no further action in the matter and, in fact, discontinued his representation of her without obtaining prior approval of his client or receiving permission from the Court. Following a formal hearing on September 3, 1980 the Committee found that respondent had failed to carry out his contract for professional services with his client, had withdrawn from a court proceeding without permission of the tribunal and engaged in conduct which adversely reflected on his competence to practice law. DRB determined that the conclusions of the District Ethics Committee were supported by clear and convincing evidence. Both the Committee and DRB found respondent guilty of neglect, failure to communicate with clients, failure to act competently, deceitful communications with clients and misrepresentations concerning the status of actions being handled on the clients' behalf, and failure to carry out contracts of employment with clients for professional services. Both the Committee and DRB found unpersuasive that during 1977-1978 respondent sustained injuries in two automobile accidents and has suffered from other physical and emotional disorders. DRB concluded that [I]t is uncontroverted that respondent has flagrantly violated numerous disciplinary rules on various occasions. DRB found further that respondent's conduct evidences significant disregard for the duties and responsibilities of an attorney-at-law of this State. Respondent does not contest the findings in the Jamititus matter and acknowledges that he acted improperly in the Harmon, Amato, Usherson, and Buckley matters. After an independent review of the record, we conclude that the factual findings of DRB are correct and we adopt them. Respondent contends that he should receive a penalty no more severe than a reprimand. We disagree. As we wrote recently in a similar matter, [t]he picture presented is not that of an isolated instance of aberrant behavior unlikely to be repeated. Respondent's conduct over a period of years has exhibited a `pattern of negligence or neglect in his handling of legal matters'. In re Fusciello, 81 N.J. 307, 310 (1979) (citation omitted). Fusciello involved an attorney who misused trust funds, failed to act competently and failed to maintain proper financial records. He was disbarred. While respondent's conduct does not involve the misuse of trust funds, the public must be protected from the systematic misconduct of attorneys. His conduct must be evaluated in light of the primary purpose of disciplinary proceedings, which is not punishment of the offender, but protection of the public against the attorney who cannot or will not measure up to the high standards of responsibility required of every member of the profession. In Re Stout, 75 N.J. 321, 325 (1978). Respondent recently began treatment with a psychiatrist. Under all of the circumstances, we conclude that the appropriate discipline is to suspend respondent for two years from the date of his temporary suspension and until he submits medical proof that he is capable of practicing law. We direct further that respondent reimburse the Administrative Office for costs in this matter. For suspension  Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O'HERN  7. Opposed  none.