Jacob, Matter of
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 95 N.J. 132,469 A.2d 498 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Howard L. JACOB, III, An Attorney at Law. |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1984 |
Page 132
Decided Jan. 24, 1984.
Page 133
Colette A. Coolbaugh, Counsel, Trenton, for complainant Disciplinary Review Bd.
Richard J. Schachter, Somerville, for respondent (Schachter, Wohl, Cohn & Trombadore, Somerville, attorneys; John F. Bracaglia, Jr., Somerville, on the brief.)
PER CURIAM.
This disciplinary proceeding was presented initially before the District XII Ethics Committee. An investigation of the respondent had been initiated on the basis of the complaint of an attorney who represented a banking institution that held a mortgage on premises that were the subject of a sale. The mortgage was to have been satisfied from the sale proceeds. When the mortgage thereafter went into default, inquiries revealed that the mortgage had not been satisfied and that the failure to apply the proceeds was the fault of the respondent who represented the purchasers. Respondent arranged for the discharge of the mortgage shortly after receiving the pointed inquiries from the mortgagee bank's attorney. The incident was related to the Central Ethics Unit of the Administrative Office of the Courts. The ensuing investigation into this matter by the District Ethics Committee resulted initially in a dismissal of the complaint. An appeal by the Division of Ethics and Professional Services to the Disciplinary Review Board resulted in a remand for a further investigation, which included an examination of respondent's trust account records. This inquiry unraveled a skein of continuing misappropriations of clients' funds by respondent. In the meantime respondent consented to a temporary suspension from the practice of law.
At the hearing on the asserted ethics violations, the record consisted of three documents introduced into evidence with the
Page 134
consent of the respondent and his attorney. These consisted of a "disciplinary stipulation," a "disciplinary action-consent order," and a letter report from the firm of certified public accountants that conducted the audit of respondent's records. The stipulations established that during 1981 and 1982 respondent failed to make appropriate disbursements of clients' trust funds resulting in misappropriations totalling approximately $30,000. It was also stipulated that respondent, who was admitted to the bar in 1975 and practiced law as a sole practitioner from 1979 to September 16, 1982, did not maintain his trust and business accounts in compliance with the requirements of R. 1:21-6(b)(1) and (2). The stipulation further noted that respondent had made full and complete restitution to all clients.Respondent did not dispute any of these facts. However, he reserved the right to present relevant and material evidence in mitigation of the disciplinary rule infractions designated by the stipulation.
Respondent's position, as summarized in the presentment of the District Ethics Committee, is that he suffered from thyrotoxicosis in 1981 and 1982 and that this condition, together with his continuing disappointment over his and his wife's inability to have children, caused certain aberrational conduct on his part that manifested itself in hyperactivity, depression, irrationality, intoxication, extra-marital sexual gratification, and irresponsibility both in his personal and professional pursuits.
The only medical evidence in support of respondent's position was a letter from his physician. The hearing panel noted from the letter that the physician is a general practitioner and apparently is not a licensed psychiatrist or analyst. The panel accepted his report "with that reservation, and with the further reservation that we do not know if he is Board certified in a psychogenic discipline." He treated respondent as a family physician for ten years. This letter related that respondent was being treated for thyrotoxicosis ("described as a state of intoxication due to excessive or abnormal activity of the thyroid
Page 135
gland") since April 1981. The letter further related that respondent had also received treatment for that condition from another doctor...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Konopka, Matter of
...own venal purposes. The two $500 disbursements were clearly related to the purposes of the Konopka family account. Compare In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 137, 469 A.2d 498 (1984) (attorney misappropriated client funds " 'to sustain his dual life style....' "). There is no evidence of such corrup......
-
Greenberg, Matter of
...or will of a magnitude that could excuse egregious misconduct that was clearly knowing, volitional and purposeful." In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 137, 469 A.2d 498 We find that Joel A. Greenberg knowingly caused his firm to disburse monies to him that belonged to the firm without the consent of......
-
Garber, Matter of
...illnesses (In re Thompson, 67 N.J. 26, 34, 335 A.2d 1 (1975)). He offers no excuse founded on any loss of competence or will (In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 469 A.2d 498 (1984)). Further, respondent was not a victim of his own inexperience or naivete (In re Blatt, 42 N.J. 522, 524, 201 A.2d 175 ......
-
Yaccarino, Matter of
...condition does not alter the quality of respondent's breach of ethics or provide a defense in these removal proceedings. See In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 469 A.2d 498 This medical evidence does not directly relate to motive or intent on the part of respondent. In any event, the primary object ......
-
Konopka, Matter of
...own venal purposes. The two $500 disbursements were clearly related to the purposes of the Konopka family account. Compare In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 137, 469 A.2d 498 (1984) (attorney misappropriated client funds " 'to sustain his dual life style....' "). There is no evidence of such corrup......
-
Greenberg, Matter of
...or will of a magnitude that could excuse egregious misconduct that was clearly knowing, volitional and purposeful." In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 137, 469 A.2d 498 We find that Joel A. Greenberg knowingly caused his firm to disburse monies to him that belonged to the firm without the consent of......
-
Garber, Matter of
...illnesses (In re Thompson, 67 N.J. 26, 34, 335 A.2d 1 (1975)). He offers no excuse founded on any loss of competence or will (In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 469 A.2d 498 (1984)). Further, respondent was not a victim of his own inexperience or naivete (In re Blatt, 42 N.J. 522, 524, 201 A.2d 175 ......
-
Yaccarino, Matter of
...condition does not alter the quality of respondent's breach of ethics or provide a defense in these removal proceedings. See In re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 469 A.2d 498 This medical evidence does not directly relate to motive or intent on the part of respondent. In any event, the primary object ......