Opinion ID: 1464247
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of James Tobin

Text: 3. The third critical witness before the panel was James Tobin, who had been designated as Acting Chief of the Lyndhurst Police Department from July 1996 to August 1997. In addition to his testimony before the three-judge panel, James Tobin was interviewed by John Tonelli of the ACJC on February 13, 1998. A report of that interview was admitted into evidence as Exhibit R-1. Mr. Tonelli's report of his interview of James Tobin reads as follows: Mr. Tobin was assigned by the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office as acting Police Chief in Lyndhurst in July 1996 in response to a conflict that occurred between the Police Commissioner, Paul Haggerty and the Chief of Police, John Scalese. Lyndhurst is governed under the Walsh Act, so Mr. Haggerty had the power to hire, fire and promote in the police department and the municipal court. Approximately 2 days before Chief Scalese left the department on terminal leave, Mr. Haggerty promoted Captain James O'Connor as the new police chief. The last thing that Scalese did before he left was to promote Deputy Chief Robert Giangeruso as chief. Mr. Haggerty alerted the ATTORNEY GENERAL's office of the conflict, and they directed Mr. Tobin, a captain in the prosecutor's office, to serve as acting police chief on an interim basis. Chief Tobin assumed that he would only be there for a few weeks, but he remained until August 1997. Shortly thereafter, he retired from the prosecutor's office and was eventually hired as police chief in Lyndhurst on January 5, 1998. Mr. Haggerty did not seek re-election in May 1997. When Tobin took over the police department, Haggerty visited him late in the day on a daily basis to see what was happening in the police department. In early November 1996, Haggerty told Tobin that Judge Breslin telephoned him and said that one of Breslin's clients dropped off the resume of the client's son to give to Haggerty for a police officer job. Breslin said that the envelope contained another smaller envelope. Haggerty became angry and told Breslin that he didn't want to know anything else about it. Haggerty implied that there was money in the smaller envelope, and Tobin asked him how he knew that. Haggerty said: I just know it, but Judge Breslin did not tell him that there was money in the envelope. Tobin told Haggerty to confirm whether there was money in the envelope, and if so, whether Judge Breslin still had possession of it. A few days later, Haggerty told Tobin that there was money in the envelope and that Breslin was ready, willing and able to turn it over to the proper authorities. Tobin informed Chief Greco of the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office of what had transpired. Tobin also requested that he not be involved in the investigation of this matter because he had his hands full with other matters. Greco told Tobin to have Haggerty prepare a report of the incident and give it to Tobin to forward. Haggerty prepared a short recitation of what occurred on November 27, 1997 and gave it to Tobin. Tobin sent it to Greco, and that ended Tobin's involvement in this matter. Tobin assumes that Judge Breslin knew that Haggerty was reporting the matter to the prosecutor's office based on what Haggerty told him and the fact that Haggerty can't keep a secret. Tobin also believes that it is possible that Judge Breslin could have been holding onto the money until the prosecutor's office asked him to come in on December 26, 1997. Tobin recalls some delay on the part of the prosecutor's office in investigating this matter immediately. He does not know why there was a delay or who caused it. Mr. Tobin believes that this incident was an attempted set-up by a group of people because of political reasons. Tobin pointed out a few coincidences that are difficult to explain. The group of people belong to the local Italian/American Club that is located in The Hook section of Lyndhurst. According to Tobin, membership in that club includes Former Police Chief Scalese, Deputy Giangeruso, Mayor Stellato and other high ranking police officers and municipal officials. As you read in the first paragraph of this report, Former Chief Scalese and Deputy Giangeruso were not Haggerty's biggest fans. After the arrest of Ciardella, Deputy Giangeruso stormed in the detectives bureau and demanded a copy of the file in the Ciardella case. The detectives told him that they did not have a file and did not participate in the investigation of the matter. Giangeruso then stormed into Tobin's office and made the same demand. Tobin told him that the matter was handled by the prosecutor's office and that Giangeruso should go to their office and demand a copy of the file. Giangeruso quickly calmed down and kept his mouth shut. Tobin can think of no other reason why Giangeruso would be so interested in that case if he or his club were not involved. In addition, Ciardella was represented in the criminal matter by Robert Gantalucci, Esq. who purportedly was the club attorney. Ciardella's brother was also said to be a member of the club. James Tobin also testified before the three-judge panel on October 1, 1999. His direct examination was conducted by Assistant Attorney General, Mark Fleming. Q. By whom are you presently employed? A. Schwab and Company in Jersey City, New Jersey. Q. In what capacity? A. As an executive protection specialist. Q. By whom were you employed in the year 1996? A. Bergen County Prosecutor's Office. Q. And in what capacity? A. I was a Captain of Investigators. Q. Did there come a time in 1996 that you received an assignment to the Lyndhurst Police Department? A. Yes. Q. And what was that assignment? A. I was assigned to serve there as the acting chief of police pursuant to an order from the Attorney General's Office for the acting prosecutor, Charles Buckley, to take over that department. Q. And who gave you that assignment? A. Both Chief Greco and Charles Buckley gave me that assignment. Q. And who is Chief Allen Greco? A. He was the Chief of Investigators for the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office. Q. Was he your immediate supervisor? A. Yes. Q. And for how long did you serve as acting police chief in Lyndhurst? A. Approximately 13 months. Q. From when to when? A. From about July 1996 until approximately late August, early September 1997. Q. When you were appointed acting chief was that fact publicly known to the citizens of Lyndhurst? A. Yes. Q. Did it receive press coverage? A. Yes. Q. Was it controversial? A. I would say in town it was controversial. Q. Did members of the Lyndhurst police force know that you were acting, appointed acting chief? A. Yes. Q. At that time was Judge Breslin's son a police officer in Lyndhurst? A. Yes. Q. When you became acting chief, where was your office located? A. My office was located on the top floor of the municipal building, which is on the corner of Valley Brook and Delafield Avenues. Q. And where was it located in relation to the municipal courtroom? A. The courtroom was right across the hallway from my office. Q. Okay. Did you have any dealings with Judge Breslin in his capacity as Municipal Court Judge? A. I met Judge Breslin, I would say hello to him when I saw him around the courthouse, and I sat in on court few times. Q. Do you recall if you were ever introduced to Judge Breslin as the acting police chief? A. I was introduced to Judge Breslin to the best of my recollection by James O'Connor, who was a Captain from the Lyndhurst Police at that time. And to the best of my recollection, he said I was the acting police chief. Q. As acting police chief did you have any dealings with Paul Haggerty? A. Yes, frequent dealings. Q. In what capacity? A. Mr. Haggerty was the Police Commissioner, and I dealt with him basically on a daily basis about whatever was going on the department programs, anything we were doing. He would normally come in in the late afternoon after his job and come into my office and speak to me. Q. Did Mr. Haggerty have an office in the building? A. Yes. Q. And where was that located in relation to your office? A. Mr. Haggerty's office was two floors below me. His office was actually within the, I guess, the proper of the police department. The police desk was two floors below me, and in order to get in there you would have to go through a door and actually enter where the locker room is and the cells, and Mr. Haggerty's office was in that area. Q. Now, in these daily meetings that you just testified to with Mr. Haggerty, did he typically come to your office? A. Yes. Q. Did there come a time in 1996 when Mr. Haggerty mentioned to you something about money being given to Judge Breslin that was intended for him? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall when that was? A. It was approximately two days prior to November 27th, 1996. Q. And what's the basis for that date? A. Because that's the date that Mr. Haggerty dated his report that he was instructed to make. And I remember that when I asked him to make that report it only took a couple of days. Q. Could you relate to the Court if you recall the substance of your conversation with Mr. Haggerty? A. Yes. One evening Mr. Haggerty came into my office, which he did almost daily. He said he had something important to discuss. He closed the door. He went on to tell me that he had had a recent discussion with Judge Breslin from town, and that Judge Breslin had told him that he, Judge Breslin, had had some business with a client by the name of Ciardella. At the end of that business, Mr. Ciardella, according to Judge Breslin, gave the Judge an envelope containing an application for Mr. Ciardella's son to be a police officer in the Lyndhurst Police Department. Mr. Breslin told Mr. Haggerty that there were two other envelopes in with the application. At that time Mr. Haggerty reported to me that he said: Stop, I don't want to hear any more, I don't want any part of this. I asked him: What was in the envelopes? Mr. Haggerty told me he knew instinctively that it was a bribe and that the envelopes contained cash. And he said Judge Breslin did not know what was in the envelopes. Q. Now, did you consider this account a serious matter? A. Yes. Q. And what did you do when Mr. Haggerty finished telling his story to you? A. I reported it to Chief Greco verbally. Q. Do you recall when you reported it to Mr., to Chief Greco? A. Immediately. Q. Could you describe in detail what you mean by reporting it immediately? A. I telephoned Chief Greco at his office and relayed the information that was given to me. Q. Do you recall if Mr. Haggerty was in the office at the time you did that? A. I believe he was. Q. Do you recall if you reached Chief Greco when you picked up the phone to call him? A. Yes. Q. That same day? A. To the best of my recollection, yes. Q. Do you recall what Chief Greco's response was to your phone call? A. Yes, I do. He told me that I did not have to do a report on it, to have Mr. Haggerty do a report on it, and to get that report to him, and that he would assign the special investigation squad to follow up and investigate it. Q. Did you relay that to Mr. Haggerty while he was still in the office that day? A. Yes. Q. How often did you, in your capacity as acting chief, deal or have a conversation with Chief Greco? A. I spoke to Chief Greco every day that I was there. Maybe I missed a day here or there, but I would say every day. Q. Was that a telephone conversation or a face to face meeting? A. Telephone. Normally, I would get in somewhere around eight or nine or a little before eight in the morning, I would get settled in my office, plan my day. He would get, he came on duty up in Hackensack at about 9 a.m., and I would call him about 9 a.m., and tell him what was going on. Q. Did Mr. Haggerty subsequently submit a report to you? A. Yes, he did. Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked C 9 in evidence. Do you recognize that document? A. Yes, I do. Q. And what is that document? A. This is copy of the report that Mr. Haggerty submitted to me. Q. And is that document dated? A. Yes, Mr. Haggerty dated it November 27th, 1996. Q. Do you recall if you received the document that same day? A. That day, yes. Q. I'm going to ask that you take a look at a calendar from November 1996. Could you tell the Court when November 27th was? A. November 27th was the last Wednesday in November 1996. Q. Which makes it the day before Thanksgiving. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, once you got this report, C-9, from Mr. Haggerty, what did you do with it? A. I sent it to Chief Greco. Q. Do you recall by what means? A. I don't recall if I mailed it to him or if I faxed it to him. Q. Do you recall when you did that? Was it the same day? A. Yes. I would say it was the same day. Q. Now, following receipt of the report, do you know if the Prosecutor's Office conducted an investigation into this allegation? A. I'm aware that they conducted an investigation. However, I did not supervise or participate to a very great degree in that investigation. Q. Did Mr. Haggerty ever inquire of you of the status of the investigation? A. Yes, he did. Q. Do you recall how often? A. Maybe two or three times he asked me what was going on with the investigation, after he had given me his report. Q. Do you recall what your response was to those inquiries? A. I basically told him that I didn't know what was going on, which was actually the truth. Q. Do you recall being interviewed by a representative of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct about this matter? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall when that interview took place? A. The date, no, sir, not without something to refresh my recollection. Q. Do you recall who interviewed you? A. An investigator from the Judicial Ethics Board, I believe. Q. Are you aware that the report produced by that investigator indicates that you advised him at that time that Mr. Haggerty came to you with this information in early November of `96? A. Yes, I'm aware that the report says that. Q. Do you have an explanation as to why the report says that? A. When I was interviewed by him, it was already probably at least a year after this occurred. I wasn't shown anything to refresh my recollection about dates, and he might have even suggested to me that, you know, could it have been early November or whatever, and I said yes. I didn't know the date at that time. Q. Just for the Court's benefit, could you testify now as to what your best recollection of events was as to when Mr. Haggerty came to you with this information? A. Yes. Using C-9 to refresh my recollection, which is dated 11-27-96, this document was submitted to me, which is Mr. Haggerty's report, within the two days of his verbal reporting it to me. MR. FLEMING: Thank you. No further questions.       CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FLOOD: Q. Mr. Tobin, when you took over as the acting chief, was there any announcement as to how long it was anticipated you would serve as the acting chief? A. No. Q. So it was up in the air. Correct? A. Yes. Q. It could have been for a week, could have been for two weeks, could have been for a month. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And it actually turned out to be approximately twelve or thirteen months? A. I honestly thought it would be much shorter than it turned out to be. Q. And you expected that it would be a very short period of time that you would serve as the acting chief. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were basically there because there was some controversy in determining who should be appointed the new chief from the ranks of the Lyndhurst Police Department. A. I was there because of a complex situation where two officers were both appointed as in command of the department, in writing, which must have caused confusion to the officers. And when this was reported to the Attorney General's Office, they instructed the Prosecutor to take it over, take over the department. Q. Were you aware that there were some very strong feelings in Lyndhurst in terms of certain camps were in favor of one candidate for the police, to be police chief, and other camps were in favor of someone else? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, were you aware of the fact that there was a lot of controversy concerning decisions that Paul Haggerty had made as to who the next chief of police should be? A. Yes. He was one of the people who issued a written order. Q. And were you aware that there was a group of people that, in your opinion, were very upset with the actions of Mr. Haggerty? A. Yes. Q. When you initially found out about this so-called bribe attempt, did you believe that Mr. Haggerty, there could have been an attempt to set up Mr. Haggerty because of the politics in town? A. Mr. Haggerty told me that that night when he verbally reported it to me that he felt he was being set up. Q. Well A. As time went on with certain events that occurred in town, I actually suspect that that could be correct. Q. Well, are you aware of a Italian American Club in Lyndhurst that is located in the hook section of Lyndhurst? A. Yes. Q. And are you aware if any members of the Lyndhurst Police Department were affiliated with that Italian American Club? A. Yes. Q. Who, to the best of your recollection, were members of the Lyndhurst Police Department that were affiliated with that club? A. Well, the most important one was one of the two contenders for the position of chief, and that was Deputy Chief Robert Giangeruso. It's my understanding that he was actually, had some standing in that club of higher authority, and that he had other members of the department were also members of the club. Q. Do you know if Ciardella had any connection whatsoever with this particular Italian American Club? A. It wasat some point I learned that he was a member of that club, or former member of that club. Q. Do you recall an incident after strike that. Do you recall an incident involving Deputy Chief Giangeruso attempting to obtain copies of any investigative reports that were prepared with respect to the attempt to bribe Paul Haggerty? A. Yes. Q. Please tell the panel what you recall with respect to those attempts. A. What occurred was Deputy Chief Giangeruso went into the detective division which was commanded by Captain James O'Connor, who was the other contender, and demanded to see the case file on the investigation into the bribe attempt involving Mr. Haggerty and Judge Breslin. This occurred after the arrest of Mr. Ciardella and, in fact, that arrest was in the newspaper. Prior to that he didn't know about this investigation. Q. Can you think of any reason as to why Giangeruso would have been interested in obtaining those reports? A. No, I can't. Q. Now, no question that Haggerty brought this bribe attempt to your attention. Correct? A. Yes. Q. Would it be also fair to say that when he reported this to you, he indicated that Judge Breslin was ready, willing and able to turn over the money to the Prosecutor's Office and cooperate with that investigation? A. He told me that when he gave me his written report. In fact, that was in response to my question. When he verbally reported, I asked him that question, I said: Does the Judge still have it? Is he willing to give it to us and come forward and cooperate? And he said he would check with him.       Q. Now, can you give this panel any explanation, assuming that you reported it to Greco a couple days before November 27th, as to why it wasn't until the third week at the very earliest that your office contacted Judge Breslin to interview him? A. No, I can't tell you why. I can tell you that I was aware of that delay, and I was a little apprehensive about why it was taking so long. I definitely understood that there was a delay, but I didn't really participate in the investigation, I didn't know what they were doing, if they were pulling records, if they were doing a wire, or if they had to go down the Prosecutor, go down to Trenton, meet with the Attorney General because of the sensitivity of the whole thing, I don't know. But I was getting a little apprehensive about why it took them so long also. III The DRB's disbarment recommendation is based on its determination that Respondent violated RPC 8.4(c) and (d) in that he engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, and engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Although no such finding was made by the three-judge Panel, leaving to this Court the ultimate determination whether such RPC violations have been established by clear and convincing evidence, an examination of the Panel's findings reveals that the Panel focused almost exclusively on whether Respondent's conduct in not reporting the bribe attempt violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Preliminarily, we note an apparent inconsistency between the Panel's refusal to rely on any statements made by Ciardella to investigators or during his electronically recorded conversation with Haggertyin view of Ciardella's unavailability for cross-examinationand the Panel's finding that Ciardella, and not Respondent, was credible in describing the meeting with Respondent on October 17, 1996. Notwithstanding Respondent's uncontradicted testimony that Ciardella came to his office without an appointment, handed him an envelope, and asked him to give it to the Commissioner, the Panel's opinion states as follows: Ciardella and Respondent, on that Thursday, conversed generally regarding the contents of the manila envelope and Ciardella's purpose in presenting the envelope to Respondent. We find Ciardella would not have accumulated such a large amount of money and traveled all the way from Toms River without (1) explaining to Respondent at least generally the contents of the envelope; (2) explaining his intent and purpose in making the delivery to Respondent; and (3) receiving assurances from Respondent that he would pass the manila envelope and its contents to Haggerty. In sum, Ciardella chose Respondent to be the intermediary and delivered the money and application with some explanationan explanation that made Respondent at least generally aware, at that time, of the bribery and its goal. In making these findings, we find implausible Respondent's testimony that the conversation lasted no more than one and one-half minutes and entailed only, Here's an application for the police department. Give it to the Commissioner. At the same time, we elect not to rely substantively on the statements of Ciardella regarding his conversations with Respondent that are contained in either the electronically recorded January 5, 1997, conversation between Ciardella and Haggerty or in the statement Ciardella gave to the police. (Emphasis added). Because the Panel declined to rely on Ciardella's statements about his encounter with Respondent in view of his unavailability for cross-examination, its conclusion that Ciardella's version is more credible than Respondent's is troubling. Perhaps the Panel inferred that Ciardella's version is the more likely of the two, as a matter of common experience, but such an inference would not support a factual finding by clear and convincing evidence if, as the Panel states, it gave no substantive effect to Ciardella's testimony or statement. After summarizing the relevant facts, the three-judge Panel observed that three facets of Respondent's conduct must be addressed: (1) his acceptance of the manila envelope and knowledge of the bribe plan without promptly and independently notifying law enforcement officials; (2) his propounding of a hypothetical question to Haggerty; (3) his abdication to Haggerty of the responsibility to report the bribe plan to Acting Chief Tobin. Concerning the first and third aspects of Respondent's conduct, the Panel found that his failure to report the bribe directly to law enforcement officials other than Haggerty violated Canon 1 (noting that a judge should personally observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved) and Canon 2A (noting that judges should act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary) of the Code of Judiciary Conduct. Concerning Respondent's conduct of propounding a hypothetical question to Haggerty about the bribe, the Panel found that this was conduct whereby a reasonably objective member of the public could conclude Respondent was testing the waters to determine whether Ciardella's plan could come to fruition, a testing that either implicated a hope of being able to share in one of the two small envelopes of money or, at the very least, a willingness to act as intermediary in the transmission of the bribe money to Haggerty. We find, under either scenario, a reasonably objective member of the public could conclude that Respondent became an accomplice in Ciardella's plan. Accordingly, the Panel found that because a reasonably objective member of the public could have concluded that Respondent was trying to determine Haggerty's receptivity to a bribe, his conduct violated that aspect of Canon 2A that [states that] a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Two aspects of the Panel's determination on that issue are significant. First, the Panel did not find that Respondent engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, the elements of an RPC 8.4(c) violation, but rather that a reasonably objective member of the public could so conclude. It is far from hairsplitting to observe that the Panel focused on the more general language of the Canons that implicate public confidence in the judiciary, and not on whether clear and convincing evidence supported a finding of Respondent's complicity in the bribery. Second, no evidence in the record directly supports the Panel's findingon which the DRB apparently reliedthat Respondent was sounding out Haggerty's willingness to accept a bribe. That might be one of several plausible inferences that could be derived from the various evidentiary accounts of their conversation. However, both of the participants in the single, isolated conversation at LaCibeles Restaurant that could have implicated Respondent in the bribe plot firmly rejected any such suggestion. Respondent testified that he framed the question hypothetically in an attempt to protect his friend of twenty-five years standing. As he testified at his May 6, 1998 ACJC deposition: Because I didn't ... I didn't want to get him involved, if I didn't have to. Because the guy's approaching us, even though he's telling me to give it to the Commissioner, I'm saying well why should I get him involved. I mean just deal with it myself here, rather than getting him involved, if I didn't have to. Similarly, when Haggerty testified before the Panel, he flatly rejected the suggestion that Respondent was testing the waters to see if he would accept a bribe. Q. Now, when Judge Breslin came to the restaurant and told you about the application he had received from a client, did you think he was trying to bribe you or see if you were willing to accept any money to give some guy's son a job on the Lyndhurst Police Department? A. Absolutely not, because he knows me and has known me for a quarter of a century or more, he knows me better. No, absolutely not. He was looking for: What are we going to do about this? Q. Just so there's no misunderstanding with this panel, do you think there was any chance at all that Breslin was trying to see if you would take the money? A. Absolutely not. Q. Now, what do you think Breslin was attempting to do the first time he spoke to you at that restaurant? A. Looking for help, or maybeI don't know. Looking for help, tip me off, what are we going to do about this crazy situation? Q. Now, you cut him off before he gave any more details. Correct? A. Yes, I did. In short, the only participants in the conversation at the restaurantRespondent and Haggertyvigorously deny that Respondent was testing Haggerty's honesty. These were friends of long standing, who met for drinks after work two or three times a week, went to ball games together, and whose families were closely connected. Concededly, different inferences can be drawn from their respective and varying recollections of their conversation. One plausible interpretation is that Respondent may have been trying to verify that there had been no prior communication between Ciardella and his friend Haggerty of which he was unaware. Or, as Haggerty suggests, Respondent may have been looking to Haggerty for advice on how to deal with an awkward and compromising situation. Other, more nefarious, inferences also are plausible. But this Court does not disbar lawyers based only on inference. In our view, this record cannot fairly be read to provide clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was testing the waters to determine if his close friend was interested in a bribe. The DRB apparently reached that conclusion, however, relying on the three-judge Panel's finding that a reasonably objective member of the public could conclude that Respondent was testing the waters. The perception of the public, however, relates directly to the generalized standard of judicial behavior that transgresses the Code of Judicial Conduct, not the more specific standard implicated by an order of disbarment. Moreover, in terms of the need for both Breslin and Haggerty to be wary of a purported bribe offer, Acting Chief Tobin's statement to the ACJC's investigators confirmed that the threat of a set-up was far from idle. According to the ACJC investigator Tonelli: Mr. Tobin believes that this incident was an attempted set-up by a group of people because of political reasons. Tobin pointed out a few coincidences that are difficult to explain. The group of people belong to the local Italian/American Club that is located in The Hook section of Lyndhurst. According to Tobin, membership in that club includes Former Police Chief Scalese, Deputy Giangeruso, Mayor Stellato and other high ranking police officers and municipal officials. As you read in the first paragraph of this report, Former Chief Scalese and Deputy Giangeruso were not Haggerty's biggest fans. After the arrest of Ciardella, Deputy Giangeruso stormed in the detectives bureau and demanded a copy of the file in the Ciardella case. The detectives told him that they did not have a file and did not participate in the investigation of the matter. Giangeruso then stormed into Tobin's office and made the same demand. Tobin told him that the matter was handled by the prosecutor's office and that Giangeruso should go to their office and demand a copy of the file. Giangeruso quickly calmed down and kept his mouth shut. Tobin can think of no other reason why Giangeruso would be so interested in that case if he or his club were not involved. (Emphasis added). In that context, that Respondent chose to inform Haggerty of the bribe attempt in the less than explicit conversational style characteristic of an old friendship is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that one of their primary concerns may have been to protect each other from the unsavory implications that inevitably are associated with an unsolicited bribe attempt. The DRB, however, relying on the Panel's findings made in a different context, concludes that Respondent's single conversation with Haggerty provides clear and convincing evidence of complicity in a bribe attempt. It then relies on cases in which bribes actually were paid to conclude that Respondent must be disbarred. However, unlike In re Coruzzi, 95 N.J. 557, 472 A. 2d 546 (1984), In re Hughes, 90 N.J. 32, 446 A. 2d 1208 (1982), or the other bribery cases cited by the DRB, no bribe was paid here. As the record reveals, after Haggerty informed Tobin in November 1996, of the bribe attempt by Ciardella, Tobin relayed the information to the Prosecutor's Office. A delay of at least one month ensued before the Prosecutor's staff contacted Respondent and requested him to appear for an interview. The money was then delivered promptly by Respondent to the Bergen County Prosecutor, and eventually was forfeited to pay Ciardella's fine imposed in connection with his conviction for attempted bribery.