Opinion ID: 2334085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: The Solomine Matter

Text: On March 9, 1987, Ruth Solomine (`Grievant') paid respondent a $525.00 retainer to object to a notice of motion filed by her ex-husband concerning custody and visitation of the parties' son. The motion was returnable on March 13, 1987. On March 9, grievant and her son met with respondent, at which time she signed blank certifications dated March 12, 1987. Between March 16 and April 1, 1987, grievant called respondent's office on a daily basis. On that last day, she was advised respondent had been suspended from the practice of law. Upon receiving her file, grievant found copies of two certifications marked `filed' with the Superior Court clerk's office on March 17, 1987. She then personally delivered them to the judge, who agreed to carry the matter until she was able to obtain new counsel. She also discovered a copy of a letter which respondent had forwarded to the court after the return date of the motion, referring to the fact that the motion had been heard on the previous Friday and requesting an adjournment on the ground that grievant had been out of state. That was false. At the conclusion of the hearings, the committee concluded the respondent had been guilty of gross negligence in ten matters; of a pattern of neglect in seven matters; of lack of due diligence in representing clients in seven matters; of failure to communicate with the client in four matters; of failure to return the clients' files in nine of these matters; and of making a misrepresentation to the court in one matter. Although the committee acknowledged respondent had not cooperated with the investigation of the ethics matters in nine of the 15 matters, it only charged respondent formally with non-cooperation in one instance. The committee found that respondent violated RPC 1.1(a) and (b), RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4, RPC 1.16(d), RPC 3.3(a) and RPC 8.1(b). The committee recommended that respondent receive public discipline. The DRB noted that as of the date of its hearing, the Clients' Security Fund (Fund) has been required to reimburse thirteen clients a total of $14,750 for what it termed completely unearned retainers. As of this date, $15,950 has been paid out by the Fund; an additional $1,735.50 has been approved for payment. One claim remains pending. The DRB found that the conclusions of the ethics committee were fully supported by clear and convincing evidence. The Board finds that, in all but two of the fourteen matters under review, respondent was guilty of gross negligence. Conduct evidencing a pattern of neglect was found in six of those matters. In seven matters, respondent failed to take initial action by not preparing or filing any papers   . In some instances, default judgments or contempt orders were entered against clients   . In three cases, respondent failed to appear in court   . In three matters, he misrepresented to the client the papers had been filed or the delay in preparing the documents was caused by his adversary   . In the Solomine matter, he lied to the court when he requested an adjournment on the basis that his client was out-of-state. In eight matters, he failed to communicate with the clients or to respond to their reasonable requests for information. In eight instances, he refused to return the clients' files, as requested. In one matter, he ignored a court order providing for the return of the file   . In at least two cases,    he refused to refund unearned retainers. In addition, the DRB concluded that respondent had defrauded his clients: Respondent did not act with gross negligence alone. He acted with malice. The record reveals that, in the majority of the matters, respondent never intended to take any action to safeguard his clients' interests from the outset of the representation. This is not the case where the attorney undertakes the representation, receives a retainer, files the initial pleadings and subsequently loses interest in the matter. Here, respondent accepted the clients' money, promised to take legal action in their behalf, induced the clients to rely on his promise, all the while never intending to take any steps whatsoever to protect the clients' property  and in some cases liberty  to the clients' great detriment. Respondent did not only abandon his clients. He defrauded them. The Board also emphasized that respondent had failed to cooperate with the ethics proceedings. Respondent did not answer eight of the fifteen complaints instituted against him. He failed to appear at five of the scheduled hearings, covering nine of the ethics matters. He also failed to appear at the Board hearing. The Board noted that an attorney has a duty to file an answer to an ethics complaint within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court, In re Kern, 68 N.J. 325, 326 (1975), as well as a duty to cooperate with the committee's proceedings. In re Grinchis, 75 N.J. 495, 496 (1978). The DRB also noted that this was not respondent's first encounter with the disciplinary system. In 1982 he received a public reprimand for signing a client's name on three separate affidavits filed with the court. In re Spagnoli, 89 N.J. 128 (1982). The DRB found that respondent's conduct merited disbarment. Respondent's failure to conform to the high standards required of the profession after receiving a public reprimand, coupled with the grievous ethical breaches that followed it, leads the Board to the inescapable conclusion that his professional character is beyond rehabilitation. Respondent's repetitive, unscrupulous acts reveal not only a callous disregard for his responsibilities toward his clients and disdain for the entire legal system, but a deficiency in his character. He embarked on a predetermined course of conduct designed to defraud those who sought his legal protection, entrusting him with their property and freedom alike, namely, his clients.         The Board concludes that the record shows that respondent's conduct is incapable of mitigation. A lesser sanction than disbarment will not adequately protect the public from this attorney, who has amply demonstrated that his professional good character and fitness have been permanently and irretrievably lost. Matter of Templeton, supra, 99 N.J. 365, at 376 (1985). By order dated March 30, 1987, respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law until further order of the Court. Respondent has ceased practicing law and remains suspended. This Court issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined.