Court Opinion

ID: 9731314
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:42:00.889448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:14.847864
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I expressed the view in In re Konopka, 126 N.J. 225, 596 A.2d 733 (1991), that
although the Wilson rule is the right rule for the vast majority of misappropriation cases, the inflexibility with which it can be applied runs the risk of creating within our attorney-discipline system an almost reflexive approach to such cases, obscuring and ignoring the individual circumstances to an intolerable degree. [Id. at 241, 596 A.2d 733.]
I observed that the Court’s dispositions in misappropriation cases “would in my view better reflect the collective wisdom of the Court and better serve the interests of the bar and the public if they were tempered by a recognition that under special circumstances discipline short of disbarment may occasionally be appropriate in knowing misappropriation cases.” Id. at 259, 596 A.2d 733.
The Court’s opinion cites two instances of respondent’s knowing misappropriation, both of which allegedly occurred after respondent had undergone double by-pass heart surgery and had ceased accepting new matters other than for friends. At the District Ethics Committee hearing in 1987, respondent was unable to justify the trust-account shortage in one client’s funds that concededly had existed in 1980, explaining that a fire *268had destroyed his office records in 1979. The evidence of knowing misappropriation was sufficiently ambiguous that three members of the Disciplinary Review Board concluded that respondent’s conduct was negligent, not knowing. The record also reflects that any funds withdrawn improperly were replaced, no client having sustained any financial loss. I also note that respondent voluntarily placed his name on the inactive list in 1980, and has not practiced law since then.
The most distinctive aspect of this record is that respondent attributes his inattention to his practice and the resultant misuse of clients’ funds to a devastating sequence of events affecting respondent and his family. Acknowledging that “respondent may have endured more grief within several years than many endure in a lifetime,” ante at 267, 596 A.2d 75, the Court’s opinion enumerates the personal tragedies that respondent sustained during the period preceding his alleged misappropriation:
In 1975, respondent’s father died, and in the following year, respondent underwent double by-pass heart surgery. After this operation, respondent essentially ceased accepting clients. He completed pending matters and accepted new matters for friends only. In 1977, respondent’s brother committed suicide. The following year respondent developed a nervous condition and impotency due to a diabetic condition. In 1979, because of an automobile accident, he was hospitalized for one month with two herniated discs and related back ailments. In December of that year, his residence, in which his office was located, burned down. Finally, in May 1980, his mother suffered a stroke. [Ante at 265, 596 A.2d 752.
In its application of the Wilson rule the Court has ignored instances of personal tragedy in determining discipline for knowing misappropriation, see In re Noonan, 102 N.J. 157, 160, 506 A.2d 722 (1986), in the absence of proof that the lawyer’s problems actually caused the misappropriation of clients’ funds. See In re Jacob, 95 N.J 132, 137, 469 A.2d 498 (1984). That standard of proof heretofore has been unattainable by lawyers whose misappropriation of funds has occurred during periods of alcohol or drug impairment or in the course of personal or family tragedy.
*269In my view, insistence on proof that this respondent’s personal suffering caused him to misappropriate funds is both unrealistic and pointless. Our human experience is sufficient to infer a relationship between severe personal stress and acts of imprudence or even desperation. The question should not be one of causation, but rather whether our disciplinary system is sufficiently flexible in unique circumstances to temper the imposition of discipline by taking into account the influence of extraordinary events. It should be in this case.
Accordingly, I would not vote to disbar. In my view, respondent should be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law, with leave to apply for reinstatement at such time as respondent is able to demonstrate his fitness to resume practice.
For disbarment — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 4.
Concurring in part, dissenting in part — Justices O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 3.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that MICHAEL J. BELL of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1960, be disbarred and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further
ORDERED that MICHAEL J. BELL be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further
ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by MICHAEL J. BELL, pursuant to Rule 1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further
*270ORDERED that MICHAEL J. BELL comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further
ORDERED that MICHAEL J. BELL reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.