Opinion ID: 1959492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The DRB

Text: Our review is de novo on the record. R. 1:20-16(c). Nonetheless, it is appropriate in these circumstances to give due deference to the determination of the DRB. The DRB has achieved substantial expertise and experience in attorney disciplinary matters. Just as lower courts enjoy the feel of the case in assessing whether a miscarriage of justice occurred, Carrino v. Novotny, 78 N.J. 355, 361, 396 A. 2d 561 (1979), the DRB has a similar feel in ethics cases. In the past, we have shown deference to the DRB's firsthand opportunity... to assess respondent's demeanor and attitude. In re Stern, 92 N.J. 611, 617, 458 A. 2d 1279 (1983). The Board is also in the best position to evaluate the totality of the circumstances, including respondent's character, ethics history, culpability, and remorse, as well as any mitigating and aggravating factors. Far from being timid about penalties, the DRB imposes suspensions when appropriate. In this case, it decided not to suspend. I would accord appropriate weight to that decision.