In re Gorm, Docket No. 18-012
| Decision Date | 27 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 18-012 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF MATTHEW M. GORMAN AN ATTORNEY AT LAW |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Disciplinary Review Board
District Docket Nos. IIB-2015-0006E; IIB-2015-0008E; IIB-2015-0013E; IIB-2016-0010E; and IIB-2016-0011E
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
This matter was before us on a certification of the record, filed by the District IIB Ethics Committee (DEC), pursuant to R. 1:20-4(f). The formal ethics complaint charged respondent with the following violations in five client matters: RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4, presumably (b) (failure to communicate with the client), RPC 1.5(a) (unreasonable fee), RPC 1.5(b) (), and RPC 8.1, presumably, (b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities). The complaint charged respondent with having violated RPC 8.4, presumably (c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) in four client matters; unspecified provisions of RPC 1.16 () in three client matters; and RPC 8.4, presumably (d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) in one client matter. For the reasons set forth below, we determine to impose a six-month suspension on respondent for his multiple ethics infractions.
Respondent was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 2012. At the relevant times, he maintained an office for the practice of law in Hackensack.
Effective May 11, 2016, the Court temporarily suspended respondent for failure to comply with two fee arbitration determinations. In re Gorman, 224 N.J. 449 (2016), and In re Gorman, 224 N.J. 450 (2016). Effective October 28, 2016, the Court imposed another temporary suspension on respondent, also for failure to comply with a fee arbitration determination. In re Gorman, 227 N.J. 3 (2016). Respondent remains suspended.
On April 5, 2018, we determined to censure respondent, in a default matter, for his failure to comply with R. 1:20-20. In the Matter of Matthew M. Gorman, DRB 17-357 (April 5, 2018). That matter is pending with the Court.
Service of process was proper. On February 22, 2017, the DEC sent, by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the formal ethics complaint to respondent's last known post office box address listed in the attorney registration records, which respondent identified as his home address on his attorney registration form. The certified mail was returned as unclaimed. The record is unclear as to receipt of the regular mail.
On March 28, 2017, the DEC sent another letter to respondent, at the same address, by regular mail. The letter informed respondent that, if he failed to file an answer within five days, the allegations of the complaint would be deemed admitted, the record would be certified directly to us for the imposition of a sanction, and the complaint would be deemed amended to include a charge of a violation of RPC 8.1(b). Again, the record is unclear as to receipt of the regular mail.
On April 19, 2017, Isabel McGinty, Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) Statewide Ethics Coordinator, sent respondent a copy of the ethics complaint via e-mail. McGinty instructed respondent to contact the DEC secretary about the now-expired deadline for filing his answer to the complaint. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the complaint in a reply to the e-mail.
Presumably, as of December 14, 2017, the date of the certification of the record, respondent had not filed an answer to the complaint. Accordingly, the DEC certified this matter to us as a default.
The ethics charges against respondent arise from his representation of five clients in different matters. The facts alleged in the complaint are as follows.
DIANNE SOMMA MATTER (IIB-2015-0006E)
On an unidentified date, grievant Dianne Somma retained respondent to represent her in a divorce. Although Somma paid respondent a $20,000 fee, he provided her with neither a "retainer" (presumably, a written retainer agreement) nor an itemized bill. Further, throughout the representation, he failed to reply to Somma's text messages and e-mails.
Respondent failed to comply with his adversary's discovery requests until a court order compelled him to do so. He also failed to "interview[]" Somma's former husband.
Because respondent failed to obtain an expert report on one of Somma's claims, she was required to locate and retain an expert on her own. Thereafter, respondent failed to communicate with the expert and, thus, never obtained the required report, which resulted in the dismissal of that particular claim.
According to the complaint, Somma was the only person who worked on her case. Specifically, she conducted legal research and drafted all "filings."
On November 26, 2014, Somma terminated respondent's representation. He made no effort to be relieved as counsel, and failed to appear for a December 3, 2014 court proceeding of which he was aware. Somma appeared at the hearing, however, and the judge directed her to call respondent, who did not answer. His voice mail box was full, and Somma "was otherwise unable to communicate with him."
Shortly after December 4, 2014, respondent answered a telephone call from Somma. When she asked him why he had not appeared in court, he terminated the telephone call.
On March 13, 2013, Catherine Golfinopoulos retained respondent to represent her in a custody matter, paying him a $1,000 retainer. Despite repeated requests from Golfinopoulos, respondent never provided her with a written retainer agreement or any billing statements.
In August 2014, Golfinopoulos told respondent that, unless he provided her with a fee agreemnet and billing statements, she no longer wanted him to represent her. Instead of complying with her demands, respondent "began threatening Golfinopoulos that she was jeopardizing her case and standing before the Court." He failed to attend scheduled court appearances, to file documents with the court, or to oppose motions filed by his adversary.
On October 2, 2014, respondent sent to Golfinopoulos the following e-mail message:
A few days later, respondent failed to appear for another court proceeding, despite having repeatedly informed Golfinopoulos that he would attend, albeit for the purpose of seeking to be relieved as counsel. Respondent never took any formal steps to be relieved as Golfinopoulos's lawyer.
Throughout the Golfinopoulos representation, respondent ignored his client's repeated attempts to communicate with him via telephone calls, e-mails, and text messages. He also failed to provide her with updates on the status of the matter, or to return her file following his termination of the representation.
In total, Golfinopoulos paid respondent $25,000, in the form of cash, money orders, and checks payable to either respondent or cash. On an unidentified date, a fee arbitration committee awarded Golfinopoulos $13,250. Respondent did not participate in the fee arbitration, and he failed to comply with the determination, resulting in his May 11, 2016 temporary suspension.
KAMBIZ SEYRAFI MATTER (IIB-2015-0013E)
In March 2015, grievant Kambiz Seyrafi retained respondent to represent her in a custody matter. At their initial meeting, she paid him a $3,000 retainer.
Respondent never provided Seyrafi with a retainer agreement or rate sheet. To her knowledge, respondent performed no work on her case, and she failed in all attempts to communicate with him.
On October 28, 2014, Brian Cordes retained respondent to represent him in a matrimonial matter. Cordes paid him a $2,500 retainer. Instead of a "retainer agreement," however, respondent provided Cordes with a $2,500 receipt.
At some point, respondent drafted a complaint and sent it to Cordes for his review and signature. On November 11, 2014, Cordes signed the complaint and returned it to respondent. Despite repeated attempts, Cordes was unable to communicate with him for more than two months.
On January 14, 2015, Cordes received from respondent the following text message:
Cordes replied that he no longer wanted respondent to represent him and requested the return of his $2,500 retainer. Although respondent agreed to return the retainer, he never did, resulting in the entry of a $2,500 fee arbitration determination against him, and respondent's subsequent temporary suspension on May 11, 2016.
At some point thereafter, respondent told Cordes that he would refund the retainer if Cordes would release and waive any claims against him....
To continue reading
Request your trial