Opinion ID: 7314255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The McCabe Matter

Text: In November 1981, respondent was retained by Thomas McCabe (“grievant”) to form a corporation by the name of McCabe, Inc. Respondent received $100 from grievant on the date of their first conference. On December 15, 1981, grievant went to respondent’s office and received the corporate kit and related materials. Enclosed with these materials was respondent’s bill dated December 15, 1981, for a total of $160. After the $100 retainer was applied to that total bill, there remained a balance of $60. On January 18, 1982, respondent sent grievant a second bill for the $60 balance. After two billings and no payment, on March 8, 1982 respondent filed a criminal complaint against respondent and the newly formed corporation. These complaints alleged violations of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-8 (theft of services), which provides, in pertinent part: A person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation by deception or threat ... to avoid payment for the service. On the same date that the complaint was filed, March 8,1982, grievant’s wife went to respondent’s office and paid him the $60. Respondent had already signed the criminal complaints that same morning. The payment of the $60 was made without any knowledge of the criminal complaints. The complaints were subsequently dismissed on the ground that the state had not sustained its burden of proof. A formal hearing was held before the ethics committee on February 5, 1985. Grievant testified that he fully intended to pay respondent the $60 and that there was no dispute regarding either the quality of the services rendered by respondent or the amount of the bill (T. 11, 12) 1 . Grievant explained why he had not paid the $60 before March 8, 1982: My wife was working in the city and commuting. She was handling most of the bills at the time. Her only day off was Monday. She didn’t get home until eight or nine o’clock at night and it just was inadvertently overlooked [T. 12-13], Respondent testified that grievant told him, after the first billing in December 1981, that “[l]awyers are all rich, you don’t need the money” [T.37]. As a result, respondent was convinced that grievant had no intention of paying the bill. He explained his reasons for filing the criminal complaint: “I was somewhat annoyed at [grievant’s] refusal to pay. In view of his obvious financial ability to make the payment it was my impression that he was simply refusing to pay because he wanted to cheat me out of the money ... I filed the complaint because after several months had gone by and it was obvious that I was not going to receive payment from him, I thought that there should be both specific punishment of him and should be some sort of general lesson to people who would hear about the case. As a general rule, when someone has a bill to be paid, it should be paid [T.31, 32]. Following the ethics hearing, the committee concluded that respondent had violated DR 7-102(A)(2), by knowingly advancing an unwarranted claim in this matter; DR 7-102(A)(8), by engaging in conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule; DR 1-102(A)(1), by violating a Disciplinary Rule; and DR 7-105, by threatening criminal prosecution to coerce adjustment of private claims. The hearing panel report recommended a private reprimand. An attached letter by the committee chairman dated August 22,1985, however, stated that “it was the consensus of the committee that the recommendation should be a presentment and not a private reprimand as the hearing panel so recommended.”