In re Segal

Decision Date11 February 2021
Docket NumberDocket No. DRB 20-072
PartiesIn the Matter of Dawn A. Segal An Attorney at Law
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Disciplinary Review Board

Decision

Ashley L. Kolata-Guzik appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics.

Respondent 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 reciprocal discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), pursuant to R. 1:20-14(a). The motion follows respondent's one-year and one-day suspension in Pennsylvania, via a Joint Petition in Support of Discipline on Consent, wherein respondent admitted having violated Pennsylvania RPC 8.3(b) (a lawyer who knows that a judge has committed violations of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raise a substantial question as to the judge's fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority); RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and RPC 8.4(f) (knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is in violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law).

The OAE asserted that respondent was found guilty of violations of the equivalent of New Jersey RPC 8.3(b); RPC 8.4(c); RPC 8.4(d); and RPC 8.4(f), which are identical to the Pennsylvania RPCs.

For the reasons set forth below, we determine to grant the OAE's motion and recommend to the Court that respondent be disbarred.

Respondent earned admission to the New Jersey and Pennsylvania bars in 1984. At all relevant times, she maintained an office for the practice of law in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Respondent has no prior discipline in New Jersey.

This case arises from respondent's repeated engagement in ex parte communications with a fellow municipal court judge, and her associated misconduct in the administration of her court, motivated by her belief that the other judge's political connections could personally benefit her and secure her re-appointment as a judge. The OAE asserted that respondent failed to report theother judge's misconduct; unethically entertained and ruled on his requests in cases in which she presided; failed to recuse herself in those cases; and ruled favorably for his position in order to curry his political favor, for her own benefit.

Specifically, in 2009, respondent was a judicial candidate for the Philadelphia Municipal Court. During her campaign, she became familiar with Joseph C. Waters, a fellow candidate. Respondent viewed Waters as politically well-connected and knowledgeable about the political process. Conversely, respondent considered herself an outsider to Philadelphia politics. Both Waters' and respondent's campaigns were successful and, on January 4, 2010, respondent became a municipal court judge. As a result of her own perceived outsider status, however, respondent had concerns that the Democratic Party would not support her retention, in 2015.

On September 30, 2011, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an article, quoting a Democratic Party leader, who stated that the Philadelphia judges running for retention in the November 2011 election would have to contribute money to the Democratic Party. On the same day the article was published, Waters contacted respondent by telephone. Unbeknownst to respondent and Waters, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had obtained a wiretap warrant on Waters' telephone, was recording their conversation, and wouldrecord subsequent telephone conversations between the two of them.

During the September 30, 2011 conversation, respondent expressed her concerns about her retention election, despite the fact it was still four years away, and disclosed to Waters that the Democratic Party leader quoted in the newspaper article previously had threatened her for not supporting the party. Waters reassured respondent that he had the backing of twenty-one ward leaders who would support her retention campaign. He then began an ex parte communication with respondent about a case pending before her. Specifically, Waters told respondent that he had "something in front of [her] at 1:00 today." Respondent directly asked Waters what the matter was and "who do we need?" Waters told respondent the name of the case and the name of the two attorneys who would be appearing for the matter, and stated that it concerned an alarm company. Moreover, Waters stated "we got the defendant," thus, telegraphing to respondent that she should assist the defendant, Donegal. Respondent replied, "say no more. Say no more. Alright."

On the same day, respondent presided over a contested motion in a small-claims case entitled Houdini Lock & Safe Co. v. Donegal Investment Property Management Services. During the proceeding, defense counsel, whom Waters supported, requested a continuance, which respondent granted over the objection of plaintiff's counsel. Respondent further ordered that the caseproceed to trial without further delay.

Later that day, respondent informed Waters that she had continued the Donegal matter, stating that "she did the best [she] could" because counsel for Houdini was "jumping up and down," "so hopefully that's enough" help for Donegal. Waters replied that he appreciated that she granted the continuance. Respondent ended the call by saying it was "All for you. Anything."

On June 12, 2012, respondent presided over the matter of City of Philadelphia v. Rexach, a petition to open a default judgment. Respondent denied the petition on the grounds that the pro se petitioner, Rexach, had failed to set forth a meritorious defense.

On June 29, 2012, Waters called respondent to discuss his "friend," Ian Rexach, who had filed a petition for reconsideration after respondent had denied his petition to open the default judgment. Rexach is the son of Angeles Roca, who, at that time, was a Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge. At a later hearing, respondent granted Rexach's petition for reconsideration.

On July 1, 2012, respondent called Waters to inform him that she had "figured" out the Rexach case and "took care of it." She then told Waters to tell "her," presumably Roca, that it was "done." Waters replied, "[t]hank you very much, honey."

On July 23, 2012, Waters called respondent to discuss the matter of Commonwealth v. Khoury, a case that was scheduled before respondent for a preliminary hearing the following day. Khoury was charged with a felony firearms crime. Waters asked respondent if she could "take a good hard look at it," because counsel for Khoury was a "friend of [his]." Waters told respondent not to "hurt [her]self, but if [she] can help him," he would appreciate it. In response, she stated, "[n]o, I will, if he's a friend of yours. I'll look hard at the case. Don't worry about it."

On July 24, 2012, respondent presided over the preliminary hearing and reduced Khoury's firearm charge from a felony to a misdemeanor. After the hearing, respondent called Waters to inform him that she "remanded your friend's thing," and he expressed his appreciation and told her she was "the best."

On May 15 and June 3, 2014, two Assistant United States Attorneys and two FBI Special Agents interviewed respondent as part of an investigation of Waters. During these interviews, respondent admitted that she was concerned about her future retention campaign and that she tried to keep Waters "happy," because she wanted his support, as an influential member of the Democratic Party. Further, she admitted that she knew Waters was trying to influence her with his requests in the Donegal and Khoury matters; that her telephoneconversations with Waters were inappropriate; and that she should have recused herself, especially from Khoury, in which she made a substantive, legal decision to downgrade a felony charge.

Respondent also admitted that she neither disclosed her conversations with Waters to any of the parties or counsel nor recused herself after having these conversations. She further admitted that she had engaged in repeated inappropriate communications with Waters concerning pending matters, and she did so to curry favor with him for her retention campaign. Finally, respondent admitted that she failed to report Waters' misconduct to the Pennsylvania Judicial Board or any other authority.

On September 5, 2014, the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed, under seal, a two-count information against Waters, charging two felonies: one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2, and one count of honest services fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346, and 2. On September 24, 2014, Waters entered guilty pleas to both counts, before the Honorable Juan R. Sanchez, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 22, 2015, Judge Sanchez sentenced Waters to two years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, a special assessment of $200, and a fine of $5,500.

Previously, on November 25, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had entered an order accepting Waters' resignation and disbarring him, on consent, from the practice of law in Pennsylvania. On January 12, 2016, the Court of Judicial Discipline issued an order removing Waters from judicial office and deeming him ineligible to hold judicial office in the future.

On January 28, 2016, a trial was held in the Court of Judicial Discipline regarding ethics charges filed against respondent for her misconduct as a municipal judge. On July 21, 2016, the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board issued an opinion finding that respondent violated the following judicial Canons and Pennsylvania constitutional provisions: Canon 2B (a judge should not convey or knowingly permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge); Canon 3A(4) (judges . . . except as...

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