Jaffe, Matter of
| Decision Date | 26 July 1977 |
| Citation | 376 A.2d 1181,74 N.J. 86 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Allan JAFFE, An Attorney at Law. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Richard S. Hyland, Cherry Hill, for Camden County Ethics committee.
Respondent argued pro se.
This is a disciplinary proceeding against respondent who was admitted to the practice of law in this State in 1973. He is also a Pennsylvania attorney. Three alleged violations of court rules by respondent have been presented. The first is that respondent is in violation of R. 1:21-1(a) which requires that a person who practices law in New Jersey must be either domiciled in this State or maintain his principal office for the practice of law in this State. The second charges respondent with having filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey in May 1976, in which he listed himself as attorney for plaintiff but gave a Philadelphia office address in violation of R. 1:4-1(b) which prohibits an attorney filing a paper from using an out of the State office address. The third charges respondent with a violation of R. 1:21-6(a) in that although practicing law here, he does not maintain a business account and a trustee account in a financial institution in this State.
Respondent has been a lifelong resident of Pennsylvania. He matriculated at Pennsylvania State University and is a graduate of Temple University Law School. He was admitted to the bar of Pennsylvania in 1963. He presently lives at 404 Chapel Road, Elkins Park, Pa. He is a registered voter in Pennsylvania and has a Pennsylvania driver's license and automobile registration. His children attend school in Pennsylvania. He is engaged in the practice of law in the Robinson Building, 42 South 15th Street, Philadelphia. Admittedly, this is his principal law office since his Pennsylvania practice constitutes approximately 98% of his legal work.
In 1965 respondent acquired 112 South Stratford Place, Ventnor City, N. J. The premises are heated the year round and respondent spends his summers there as well as weekends and holidays throughout the remainder of the year. Respondent applied for admission to take the New Jersey bar examination in May 1973. His application filed with the Clerk of the New Jersey Supreme Court stated that he was "presently domiciled in New Jersey" and gave the Ventnor City property as his address. He took and passed the July 1973 New Jersey bar examination and was sworn in as an attorney in December 1973. Because his application set forth that he was "presently domiciled in New Jersey," respondent was issued a plenary license without being required to file an affidavit of compliance with R. 1:21-1(a). 1
Respondent is listed in the New Jersey Lawyers Diary at his 15th Street, Philadelphia, address. He uses this same address in his annual filing with the Clients' Security Fund. However, respondent is in the Atlantic County telephone directory, yellow pages section, under attorneys, and uses the Ventnor City address and phone number as his business address. The record is silent as to whether respondent has an answering service there or has arranged for the prompt forwarding of mail sent to that address. Finally, it appears that in a matrimonial suit filed in the Superior Court, Camden County, in November 1976, respondent gave a Cherry Hill, N. J. address and telephone number as his office address and telephone.
With reference to his business bank accounts, respondent in his annual report filed with the Clients' Security Fund of the Bar of New Jersey shows that these accounts are in Philadelphia, Pa., banks. Respondent asserts that this is not a violation of R. 1:21-6(a) because his practice in this State is limited and no funds belonging to clients in New Jersey matters have come into his hands. We cannot accept this generalization. Respondent has handled a real estate transaction in Atlantic City. He has been in a landlord and tenant matter as well as a domestic relations proceeding in the New Jersey courts. He has represented defendants in several criminal matters including one murder case in this State. He has appeared in at least two divorce cases here. The May 1976 complaint filed by respondent in the Superior Court involves an automobile accident case.
The purpose of R. 1:21-6(a) which requires all attorneys who practice in this State to maintain their trust and business accounts in New Jersey banks is to facilitate this Court's supervisory control over the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldberg v. New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection
...purpose of these accounts is to aid the New Jersey Supreme Court's "supervisory control" over the practice of law. In re Jaffee, 74 N.J. 86, 90, 376 A.2d 1181, 1183 (1977). The funds in the Attorney Trust Account, which are held in trust by the attorney for his client, remain the property o......
-
SR v. Twp. of Waterford
...481, 486 (D.N.J. 1982); see Worden v. Mercer County Bd. of Elections, 61 N.J. 325, 349 (1972) (Weintraub, C.J., concurring). In In re Jaffe, 74 N.J. 86 (1977), the Court dealt with the meaning of "domicile" in the context of R. 1:21-1(a), which concerns the requirements for practicing law i......
-
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Baik, 192 DB 2016
...firms that have out-of-state offices to maintain trust and business accounts in New Jersey to practice law in New Jersey. See In re Jaffe, 74 N.J. 86, 90 (1977); see generally In re White, 24 N.J. 521, 524 (1957). 32. For checks made payable jointly to the client and the attorney, the Supre......