In re Farrell

• Decision Date: 12 May 2020
• Docket Number: Docket No. DRB 19-336
• Parties: In the Matter of J. Michael Farrell An Attorney at Law
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

In the Matter of J. Michael Farrell An Attorney at Law

Docket No. DRB 19-336

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Argued: February 20, 2020

May 12, 2020

Disciplinary Review Board

District Docket No. XIV-2016-0104E

Decision

Eugene A. Racz appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics.

Respondent did not appear, despite proper notice.

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

This matter was before us on a motion for final discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), pursuant to R. 1:20-13(c)(2), following respondent's convictions, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (DMD), of ten offenses, including conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); money laundering, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); tampering with official proceedings, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2); and tampering with a witness, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). These offenses constitute violations of RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).

For the reasons set forth below, we determine to grant the motion for final discipline and recommend respondent's disbarment.

Respondent earned admission to the New Jersey and Pennsylvania bars in 1980, the South Carolina bar in 1979, and the District of Columbia bar in 1978. During the relevant timeframe, he maintained an office for the practice of law in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On February 16, 2017, following respondent's convictions, the Court temporarily suspended him from the practice of law. In re Farrell, 228 N.J. 3 (2017).

We now turn to the facts of this matter, which were gleaned primarily from the opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. United States v. Farrell, 921 F.3d 116 (4^th Cir. 2019).

From 2009 through 2013, respondent was the "consigliere," "fixer," and "adviser" to Matt Nicka and the "Nicka Organization" (the Organization), an"elaborate multi-state marijuana trafficking organization," named for its kingpin. Farrell, 921 F.3d at 123-25.¹ The Organization operated primarily in Maryland and consisted of at least fifteen co-conspirators.

In May 2012, the DMD grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Nicka and his co-conspirators with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, distributing and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and maintaining a drug premises. After several years of litigation, many of the co-conspirators pleaded guilty to federal offenses. In August 2013, Nicka, who had been a fugitive, was arrested in Canada. In January 2016, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, possession with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, and money laundering, and was sentenced to 188 months in prison.

The Organization generated millions of dollars by distributing thousands of pounds of marijuana in the eastern and southern United States. Respondent was "intimately involved in the unlawful activity of Nicka and theOrganization," despite never appearing as attorney of record for Nicka or any of the Organization's co-conspirators. Farrell, 921 F.3d at 125, 137. Instead, respondent served as the Organization's in-house counsel, attempting to provide himself a layer of insulation and a veneer of legitimacy.

The Fourth Circuit's opinion observed that the trial evidence against respondent was consistent with the way drug trafficking organizations and their lawyers typically operate. Specifically, the lawyers

become the dealer's lawyer in much the same way that a Wall Street lawyer may become "house counsel" to a corporation (or the way a "consigliere" may become a legal advisor to an organized crime family). They give advice about ongoing transactions; their business cards and home phone numbers are given to the mules in the event of an arrest; they are "on call" any time a problem arises; they socialize and become friendly with the dealers . . . Though certain practices are unquestionably illegal, the line between proper representation of a drug dealer and improper participation in his business is not always a clear one . . . Many of the specialists [in such representation] clearly remain on the proper side of the line; some play close to the edges; a few cross over and become part of the [illegal] business. The temptations are great because the profits are enormous. But so are the risks.

[Farrell, 921 F.3d at 126 n.9 (quoting Alan M. Dershowitz, The Best Defense, 398-400 (1982))].

On October 26, 2015, respondent was indicted by the DMD grand jury on charges including conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering,tampering with official proceedings, and tampering with witnesses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h), 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), 1512(c)(2), and 1512(b)(3), respectively. Farrell, 921 F.3d at 123.

On January 10, 2017, respondent's fourteen-day jury trial began before the Honorable Roger W. Titus, S.U.S.D.J of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Maryland. At trial, the government offered the testimony of over thirty witnesses, including state and federal law enforcement officers, former co-conspirators cooperating with the government, lawyers who represented cooperating witnesses, federal agents who examined respondent's records, and inculpatory, recorded conversations between respondent and cooperating witnesses. The jury returned guilty verdicts on ten counts of the indictment: conspiracy to commit money laundering (count one); money laundering (counts two, three, five, six, seven, and twelve); attempted tampering with an official proceeding (counts four and nine); and attempted witness tampering (count eight). The jury acquitted respondent of one count of attempted witness tampering (count ten) and one count of attempted tampering with an official proceeding (count eleven).

Count one alleged that, from 2009 to 2013, respondent engaged in a money laundering conspiracy involving the illicit revenue produced by the Organization's drug sales. Counts two, three, five, six, seven, and twelve allegedsubstantive money laundering offenses, whereby respondent laundered money by depositing Organization funds "to assist several of its drug dealers, or so-called 'members,' in obtaining legal services." Farrell, 921 F.3d at 123. Counts seven and twelve of the indictment alleged that respondent "laundered drug trafficking proceeds by securing money orders that he used to support an imprisoned member of the Organization." Ibid.

To prove these counts, the government offered testimony and exhibits that illustrated respondent's deep involvement with the Organization and its finances. Specifically, witnesses testified that respondent "received thousands of dollars in cash from Nicka and the Organization," and "obtained and distributed cash from" a "defense fund created and controlled by Nicka - and funded by the Organization's drug dealers - for use in defending Nicka and the Organization;" respondent also was recorded by an informant admitting he knew "'everything' about the Nicka Organization, including that Nicka and the Organization's drug dealers made large sums of cash money from marijuana trafficking." Id. at 137-38.

In an attempt to conceal the money laundering, respondent falsified his law firm's financial records regarding its receipt of "defense fund" cash. Respondent, however, unknowingly explained to a cooperating witness, in ataped recording, that respondent's role in the Organization was to "protect the family, the group of us." Ibid.

From 2009 through 2011, respondent's financial records attributed to several of the Organization's drug dealers thousands of dollars of cash deposits in his firm account; however, several of those drug dealers testified at trial that they never personally paid respondent for legal services. Additionally, in 2012, respondent deposited more than $57,000 in cash in his account without creating any corresponding client records. To support the Organization's drug dealers, respondent used the "defense fund" to pay other lawyers to represent co-conspirators; informed other co-conspirators that their legal fees were "being taken care of," then falsified his client ledgers to "show on the books" that a co-conspirator had actually paid him; and used "defense fund" cash to fund co-conspirators' jail commissary accounts. Ibid.

As further proof of respondent's crimes, the government offered evidence regarding his advice to the co-conspirators who had brushes with the law. Throughout meetings with various drug dealers in the Organization, respondent explained the Organization's "collapsed defense," theory, which was that the drug dealer co-conspirators "are to 'stand[] strong' and 'stick[] together.'" Id. at 129. During one of these conversations, respondent threatened a co-conspirator "that sticking with the collapsed defense was important, and wouldbe much better than 'someone coming to see [him],'" which the drug dealer understood as "an explicit threat of physical harm." Ibid. Additionally, when respondent learned that someone had mentioned a co-conspirator's name to the grand jury, he advised that individual that he should take "a vacation somewhere." Id. at 128, 138.

Additional counts alleged that respondent attempted to obstruct proceedings of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) (count four) and the DMD (count nine). According to count four, respondent attempted to influence a DEA forfeiture proceeding by advising a drug dealer in the Organization "not to disclose the source of certain property and by forging affidavits submitted to the DEA." Id. at 124. At respondent's direction, his legal assistant notarized these affidavits, using another...