Karwell, Matter of

Decision Date19 March 1993
Citation620 A.2d 1048,131 N.J. 396
PartiesIn the MATTER OF Paul H. KARWELL, An Attorney at Law.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

John McGill, III, Deputy Ethics Counsel, on behalf of Office of Attorney Ethics.

Thomas M. Murphy, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This matter arises from a Report and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) that respondent be suspended for three months for the illegal possession of drugs. Respondent has stipulated to the essential facts. The only issue before us is the measure of discipline.

The incident underlying this matter occurred in April 1991 when, as respondent was entering the Hunterdon County Court House, a routine security check disclosed on his person what appeared to be small amounts of narcotics, along with items of drug paraphernalia. A further search of respondent's person, clothing, and automobile disclosed small quantities of cocaine and marijuana. On November 6, 1991, respondent was admitted into the Hunterdon County pretrial intervention program (PTI), subject to a plan of counselling and supervision. Respondent admits, however, to the possession of .08 grams of marijuana, .13 grams of cocaine, and the drug paraphernalia.

The DRB found, as we do, that "[t]here is no question that, given the stipulated conduct, respondent violated RPC 8.4(b), in that his conduct reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law." The sole issue before the DRB was the appropriate measure of discipline. A majority of the DRB recommended a suspension of three months; three members dissented, one believing a public reprimand to be sufficient discipline, one believing a one-month suspension to be sufficient, and the third member suggesting imposition of a three-month suspension that would be suspended.

The proper measure of discipline is indeed difficult in this case because of respondent's unusual background. He had, earlier in his life, recognized a dependency on alcohol and for over fifteen years remained alcohol free and was actively involved in Alcoholics Anonymous. Indeed, he was active in efforts to combat the ill effects of drugs. He had assisted many others, both within and outside the legal profession, in dealing with problems of substance abuse, and had served on the board of directors of Freedom House, an organization that runs a recovery program for substance abusers. The many tributes to respondent by colleagues, clients, and friends demonstrate an outstanding career that began in 1970 and has been otherwise free of blemish. He has a small practice, but one devoted to helping countless people throughout the state. Indeed, both his client and his adversary in the matter that brought him to the courthouse attest to his reliability and integrity.

Immediately following the courthouse incident, he admitted himself to Clear Brook Manor in an in-patient rehabilitation program. He was "an above-average participant and an extremely remorseful patient." A lawyer-friend described the incident at the courthouse as a "call for help." His counsellors saw it as "an unconscious cry for assistance." We are assured that he is well on his way to rehabilitation and a drug-free life.

Notwithstanding those redeeming features, we believe that the majority of the DRB has appropriately measured the discipline. In In re McLaughlin, we stated:

We forebear the imposition of a period of suspension only because this is the first time that we have spoken to the question of discipline for a private drug incident * * *. * * * Members of the bar would be well advised not to rely on our indulgent treatment of these respondents: similar conduct henceforth will ordinarily call for suspension. [105 N.J. 457, 462 (1987).]

In that case, three young attorneys had purchased cocaine for personal use, entered PTI, and completed the program. Since In re McLaughlin, we have generally...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Musto, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1997
    ...461, 462, 640 A.2d 845 (1994) (ordering a three-month suspension for unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana); In re Karwell, 131 N.J. 396, 399, 620 A.2d 1048 (1993) (ordering a three-month suspension for possession of 0.08 grams of marijuana, 0.13 grams of cocaine, and drug parapherna......
  • In re Broeck, Docket No. DRB 19-236
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • January 23, 2020
    ...377 (2002) (cocaine and drug paraphernalia); In re Ahrens, 167 N.J. 601 (2001) (marijuana, cocaine, anddrug paraphernalia); In re Karwell, 131 N.J. 396 (1993) (marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia). Regardless of the nature of the criminal offense, the quantum of discipline typically ......

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