In re Molz, DRB 22-102

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtMAURICE J. GALLIPOLI, A.J.S.C. (RET.), CHAIR
PartiesIn the Matter of Mark J. Molz
Docket NumberDRB 22-102
Decision Date26 September 2022

In the Matter of Mark J. Molz

No. DRB 22-102

Supreme Court of New Jersey

September 26, 2022


JOHANNA BARBA JONES CHIEF COUNSEL

TIMOTHY M. ELLIS FIRST ASSISTANT COUNSEL

BARRY R. PETERSEN, JR. DEPUTY COUNSEL

NICOLE M. ACCHIONE ROCCO J. CARBONE, III ASHLEY KOLATA-GUZIK NICHOLAS LOGOTHETIS ASSISTANT COUNSEL

KIMBERLY P. WILL ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

PETER J. BOYER, ESQ., VICE-CHAIR JORGE A. CAMPELO THOMAS J. HOBERMAN REGINA WAYNES JOSEPH, ESQ. STEVEN MENAKER, ESQ. PETER PETROU, ESQ. EILEEN RIVERA

MAURICE J. GALLIPOLI, A.J.S.C. (RET.), CHAIR

Dear Mr. Molz:

The Disciplinary Review Board has reviewed your conduct in the above matter and has concluded that it was improper. Following a review of the record, the Board determined to impose an admonition for your violation of RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), and RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with a client).

Specifically, on November 10, 2017, Warren Unkert and his wife, Karen Unkert, retained you to represent them in connection with a personal injury lawsuit. You drafted a complaint on behalf of the Unkerts, which they reviewed and approved for filing on March 23, 2018. Thereafter, you admittedly failed to file the complaint, for eighteen months, and exceeded the applicable statute of limitations for the cause of action. You were expressly aware of the date of the applicable statute of limitations. You, thus, violated RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 1.3.

1

You also violated RPC 1.4(b) by failing to reply to Mrs. Unkert's November 13, 2019 e-mail to you, which outlined her unsuccessful efforts to obtain an update on the case for a three-month period, from September to November 2019. You did not dispute Mrs. Unkert's testimony that you failed to reply to her e-mail. Additionally, there is no proof in the record that you replied to the November 13, 2019 e-mail or informed the Unkerts that you failed to file their lawsuit prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. As a result, your clients lost their ability to pursue a personal injury action.

After weighing your misconduct and that resulting harm, the Board determined that a reprimand was the baseline quantum of discipline. However, in imposing only an admonition, the Board accorded considerable mitigating weight to your lack of discipline in more than thirty-five years at the bar.

Your conduct has adversely reflected not only on you as an attorney but also on all members of the bar. Accordingly,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT