In re Block
| Decision Date | 23 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. DRB 17-328 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF ADAM KENNETH BLOCK AN ATTORNEY AT LAW |
Disciplinary Review Board
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
This matter was before us by way of default filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), pursuant to R. 1:20-4(f). The complaint charged respondent with violations of RPC 5.5(a)(1) (), RPC 8.1(b) (), and RPC 8.4(d) (). For the reasons detailed below, we determine to impose no further discipline.
Respondent was admitted to the New Jersey and New York bars in 1993.
From September 26, 2005 to June 12, 2006; September 24, 2007 to December 11, 2012; September 30, 2013 to May 30, 2014; and August 25 to October 9, 2015, respondent was ineligible to practice law for failure to pay the annual attorney assessment to the Mew Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection (the Fund).
Respondent has an extensive ethics history. On March 7, 2013, he received a reprimand for practicing while ineligible. In re Block, 213 N.J. 8 (2013). That matter proceeded on a default basis.
On February 14, 2014, respondent was censured for again practicing while ineligible. In re Block, 217 N.J. 21 (2014). That matter also proceeded by way of default.
On November 20, 2014, respondent received a second censure. In that case, we determined not to impose additional discipline for his underlying conduct of practicing while ineligible, because that misconduct took place during the same timeframe as the prior matter for which he was censured. However, based on the fact that respondent had defaulted for the third time, he received an additional censure for multiple failures to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. In re Block, 220 N.J. 33 (2014).
On October 9, 2015, respondent was suspended for six months, also in a default matter, for gross neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate in one client matter. Further, whilerepresenting that client, respondent was ineligible to practice law. He also failed to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. In re Block, 222 N.J. 609 (2015).
Most recently, on February 9, 2018, the Court entered an Order suspending respondent for one year, for practicing while ineligible, practicing while suspended, and failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. That matter also proceeded by way of default. In re Block, D-206 September Term 2016. The specifics of respondent's conduct underlying this matter are discussed in more detail below.
Service of process in this matter was proper. On June 29, 2017, the OAE sent a copy of the complaint to respondent at the last known home address listed in the records of the Fund, by both regular and certified mail, return receipt requested. On August 4, 2017, the certified mail was returned unclaimed; the regular mail was not returned.
On August 23, 2017, the OAE sent respondent another letter, to the same address listed with the Fund, by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, informing him that, if he failed to file a verified answer to the complaint within five days of the date of the letter, the allegations of the complaint would be deemed admitted, the entire record would be certified directly to us forthe imposition of discipline, and the complaint would be deemed amended to include a violation of RPC 8.1(b). Neither the regular mail nor the certified mail was returned. Rather, the United States Postal Service tracking indicates "Notice Left (No Authorized Recipient Available) on August 26, 2017."
The time within which respondent may have answered has expired. As of the date of the certification of the record, no answer had been filed by or on behalf of respondent.
We now turn to the allegations of the complaint. As previously noted, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months, on October 9, 2015, and until further Order of the Court. Yet, in February 2016, respondent represented Yeimi L. Vargas-Nunez and Jose N. Veras in connection with a civil action.
Specifically, on February 5, 2016, while he was suspended from the practice of law, respondent filed a civil complaint in the matter of Yeimi L. Vargas-Nunez and Jose N. Veras v. Sunrise Motors, Inc., Docket No. BER L-1215-16, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County. On that complaint, respondent listed his law office in Moonachie, New Jersey, along with a contact phone number. Thereafter, counsel for defendant Sunrise Motors, Inc. (Sunrise) unsuccessfully attempted to contact respondent a number of times at that address and phone number. OnMay 22, 2016, counsel for Sunrise finally reached respondent by telephone.
Although respondent was suspended at the time of that telephone conversation, he gave verbal consent for Sunrise to file an answer to the complaint out of time. Additionally, respondent indicated that the reason he could not be reached was that he was in the process of moving his practice to another address. He also provided a new address in Port Lee, New Jersey for his law office.
On May 23, 2016, counsel for Sunrise sent a letter to respondent's new address, memorializing their conversation and enclosing a proposed consent order to answer the complaint out of time. Respondent did not reply. After becoming suspicious, counsel communicated with the OAE and learned that respondent had been suspended since October 9, 2015. Counsel had no further contact with respondent, and, after various procedural events, on June 16, 2017, moved for dismissal of the civil matter, without prejudice.
Previously, on April 28, 2016, OAE Disciplinary Investigator Tashon Jackson had telephoned respondent and informed him of "the grievance against him."1 In that conversation, respondent statedthat he had been admitted to the hospital and had no valid mailing address. On May 31, 2016, Jackson again spoke with respondent, who represented that he would provide his contact information to the OAE before he was discharged from the hospital.
On August 9, 2016, Jackson communicated with the hospital and learned that respondent had been discharged weeks earlier, and had been transferred to another hospital. Respondent did not provide the OAE with updated contact information before that discharge, as he had promised. On August 15, 2016, the OAE sent a letter by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, to respondent at his last known address listed on his attorney registration, informing him of the docketing of this investigation and requesting a response within ten days. Both the regular and certified mail were returned as undeliverable, "return to sender-unable to forward."
On August 25, 2016, Jackson again telephoned respondent and again spoke with him while he was in the hospital. Still, respondent provided no current address. In September 2016, Jackson discovered that respondent again had been discharged from the hospital. On November 9, 2016, Jackson attempted to contact respondent through his various e-mail accounts. Respondent did not reply. To date, respondent has neither provided the OAE with hisupdated contact information nor had any further contact with the OAE.
* * *
The complaint alleges sufficient facts to support the charges of unethical conduct. Respondent's failure to file an answer is deemed an admission that the allegations of the complaint are true and that they provide a sufficient basis for the imposition of discipline. R. 1:20-4(f)(1).
Respondent practiced law while suspended. On February 5, 2016, he filed a civil complaint, in Bergen County, on behalf of his clients. Then, on May 22, 2016, he again practiced while suspended when, during a telephone call with counsel for Sunrise, he consented to Sunrise's filing an answer to the complaint out of time. This conduct violated RPC 5.5(a)(1). Respondent's conduct also required the expenditure of judicial resources. Specifically, defense counsel was required to file a formal motion for permission to file an answer to the complaint out of time, which, in turn, required the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial