In re Jackson
| Decision Date | 09 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. DRB 19-295 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Samuel D. Jackson An Attorney at Law |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Disciplinary Review Board
Hillary K. Horton appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics.
Samuel D. Jackson appeared pro se.
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). On July 20, 2018, respondent entered guilty pleas in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, New York, to two counts of unlawful surveillance in the second degree, a Class E felony, in violation of § 250.45(4) of the New York Penal Code. Almost two weeks later, on August 2, 2018, respondent entered a guilty plea in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, New York, to one count of second-degree attempted unlawful surveillance, a Class A misdemeanor, in violation of § 250.45(4) of the New York Penal Code. These offenses constitute violations of RPC 8.4(b) ().
For the reasons set forth below, we determine to grant the motion for final discipline and impose a six-month suspension, retroactive to the date of respondent's temporary suspension, with conditions.
Respondent earned admission to the New Jersey bar in 2017 and to the New York bar in 2015. During the relevant time, he was engaged in the practice of law in Purchase, New York. He has no history of discipline in New Jersey, but has been temporarily suspended since February 6, 2019, based on the New York convictions underlying this motion for final discipline. In re Jackson, 236 N.J. 553 (2019).
On December 19, 2018, the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, disbarred respondent for his felony convictions. Matter of Jackson, 168 A.D.3d 22 [2d Dept 2018].
We now turn to the facts of this matter.
Respondent's convictions relate to his taking "upskirt" photographs of women, without their knowledge or consent. Specifically, on June 7, 2017, respondent took an upskirt photograph of a woman at Grand Central Station in New York, New York. Three days later, on June 10, 2017, he took fifty-five upskirt photographs of women at Belmont Racetrack.
On November 6, 2017, a grand jury for the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, returned an indictment charging respondent with one count of second-degree unlawful surveillance for his misconduct at Grand Central Station.1 On December 27, 2017, another grand jury, for the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, returned an indictment charging respondent with fifty-five counts of second-degree unlawful surveillance for his misconduct at Belmont Racetrack.
On July 20, 2018, before Judge Robert A. McDonald, acting Supreme Court Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, respondententered a guilty plea to two counts of unlawful surveillance in the second degree, felony offenses, in connection with his Belmont Racetrack misconduct. Respondent admitted that he intentionally took the photographs and was aware that a felony conviction would lead to his disbarment in New York. At his sentencing hearing, respondent stated to Judge McDonald, Judge McDonald sentenced respondent to five years of probation, including certain sex offender terms and conditions, but did not require respondent to register as a sex offender, finding it would be "unduly harsh" and "inappropriate," in light of "the nature and circumstances of the crime herein" and "the history and character of the defendant."
On August 2, 2018, before Judge Daniel Conviser, Supreme Court of New York, New York County, respondent entered a guilty plea to one count of second-degree attempted unlawful surveillance, a misdemeanor, for his conduct at Grand Central Station. Respondent admitted that he intentionally took the photographs and stated, in respect of sentencing, "I accept it and I'm very sorry." Judge Conviser issued a conditional discharge, with a one-year monitoring period, including compliance with sex offender treatment, as ordered by the Nassau County Probation Department, but did not require respondent to register as a sex offender.
The OAE recommended that respondent be suspended for six months, and that, prior to reinstatement, he be required to provide proof of psychological counseling and proof of fitness. In respect of the recommended quantum of discipline, the OAE correctly noted that there are no New Jersey disciplinary cases arising from a conviction from a criminal offense similar to the New York offenses to which respondent pleaded guilty. The New Jersey offense most similar to unlawful surveillance is invasion of privacy (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b)(1)).2
As the closest corollary, the OAE identified several cases wherein attorneys had been convicted of lewdness, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-4(a).3 Specifically, the OAE cited three cases where the attorneys received reprimands - In re Daul, 196 N.J. 533 (2008); In re Gilligan, 147 N.J. 268 (1997); and In re Pierce, 139 N.J. 433 (1995) - and one case where the attorney received a three-month suspension, In re Sicklinger, 228 N.J. 525 (2017). The OAErecommended a six-month suspension, rather than a three-month suspension, emphasizing that respondent's misconduct appeared to be part of a pattern, occurred in public places, and reflected poorly on the reputation of the New Jersey bar. In respect of mitigation, the OAE notes that respondent does not have an ethics history and reported his criminal charges.
In his brief to us, respondent did not oppose the OAE's factual or legal arguments; accepted the recommended discipline; asserted that he continues to comply with R. 1:20-20 and the Court's Order of temporary suspension; and stated that he regrets his actions, has made efforts to address the issues underlying his offenses, and continues to work toward turning his life around. Respondent admittedly entered his guilty pleas, "because, to [his] great regret, [he] was guilty." He asserted that, since June 2018, he has not practiced as an attorney in any jurisdiction, and, thus, had ceased all contact with clients.
In a section of his brief entitled, "Respondent's Actions Were Reprehensible," respondent characterized his actions as "absolutely wrong in every way and completely inappropriate," as well as "invasive and utterly disrespectful" to his victims. He stressed that he has "felt immense shame and regret every single day of the two years since [he] committed these acts." He described his actions as "disgusting and indefensible," and stated that he "ruined" his own reputation, as well as "harmed the reputation of the legalprofession and the New Jersey and New York bars, as well as the reputations of [his] law school and [his] employer." He stated that he was "truly sorry," including for the "embarrassment that [he] caused [his] victims." Respondent acknowledged that, as an attorney, he "should have held [himself] to a much higher standard and scrupulously upheld the law."
Since his conviction, respondent has been diligently pursuing psychological treatment and attending weekly sessions with a licensed psychologist and a certified substance abuse evaluator. He provided a letter from his psychologist confirming his treatment and reporting that he has made considerable progress and has an excellent prognosis. As part of his court-imposed probation, respondent also has taken part in weekly group therapy sessions. Further, respondent acknowledged that he has a "drinking problem," but, with the help of his psychologist, and the support of others in his life, he has ceased drinking entirely, and claims that he has not consumed alcohol since June 10, 2017, and that he "will abstain from drinking for the rest of his life. He asserts that he has informed us of this fact not as an excuse, but, rather, to express that he has worked to identify his issues and to resolve them. Respondent further submitted a report from the probation department detailing his compliance with all aspects of probation and his progress in group therapy. Respondent concluded his brief by acknowledging that he will "willingly acceptany punishment the Disciplinary Review Board and the Supreme Court see fit to impose."
Following a review of the record, we determine to grant the OAE's motion for final discipline. Final discipline proceedings in New Jersey are governed by R. 1:20-13(c). Under that Rule, a criminal conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding. R. 1:20-13(c)(1); In re Magid, 139 N.J. 449, 451 (1995); In re Principato, 139 N.J. 456, 460 (1995). Respondent's convictions of two counts of unlawful surveillance in the second degree, and one count of attempted unlawful surveillance in the second degree, in violation of New York Penal Law § 250.45(4), establish violations of RPC 8.4(b). Pursuant to that Rule, it is professional misconduct for an attorney to "commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer." Hence, the sole issue is the extent of discipline to be imposed. R. 1:20-13(c)(2); In re Magid, 139 N.J. at 451-52; In re Principato, 139 N.J. at 460.
In determining the appropriate quantum of discipline, we must consider the interests of the public, the bar, and the respondent. "The primary purpose of discipline is not to punish the attorney but to preserve the confidence of the public in the bar." In re Magid, 139 N.J. at 452 (citations omitted). Fashioning the appropriate penalty involves a consideration of many factors, including the"nature and severity of the crime, whether the crime is related to the practice of law, and any...
To continue reading
Request your trial