Loring, Matter of

• Decision Date: 01 June 1977
• Citation: 73 N.J. 282,374 A.2d 466
• Parties: In the Matter of Arthur D. LORING and James F. Houston, Attorneys at Law.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 282

73 N.J. 282

374 A.2d 466

In the Matter of Arthur D. LORING and James F. Houston Attorneys at Law.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued March 8, 1977.

Decided June 1, 1977.

John C. Givens, Red Bank, for complainant Monmouth County Ethics committee.

Warren W. Wilentz, Perth, Amboy, for respondent Arthur D. Loring (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, attorneys, Perth Amboy, E. James Mullaly, Perth Amboy, on the brief).

Stanley Yacker, Matawan, for respondent James F. Houston.

PER CURIAM.

The respondent Arthur D. Loring, an attorney at law of New Jersey, has been charged with violations of various Disciplinary Rules arising out of three separate incidents. Charges also were made against the respondent James F. Houston, an attorney at law of New Jersey, based on one of those episodes. Separate hearings were held before the Monmouth County Ethics Committee on each of the three transactions, there being one joint hearing which involved the two respondents. These matters came before us on the return day of orders to show cause why the respondents should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. The order to show cause directed to Loring was predicated on two presentments of the Monmouth County Ethics Committee, one concerning a transaction with Marvin J. Rosenfield and the other with Mr. and Mrs. Timothy O'Connell, and on the Committee's report involving an incident with Mr. and Mrs. Fusco. We are satisfied, after reviewing the record, that the facts are as set forth below.

I. The Fusco Complaint

Mrs. Ann Fusco suffered severe injuries as a result of a fall in a shopping center on January 22, 1972. In June 1972, Mr. and Mrs. Fusco retained respondent's law firm to represent them. Respondent was in charge of the case. Since the time was approaching when the two year statute of limitations would bar any action, Mr. Fusco telephoned the respondent once or twice a month to ascertain the status of the proceeding. He did not succeed in speaking with respondent, but was consistently told by the office that respondent would return his calls. Other than on one occasion, respondent did not communicate with Mr. Fusco. Mrs. Fusco also made a number of telephone calls to respondent, but never spoke to him or received any type of response from him.

The respondent did not file a complaint until two years and one day from the date of the accident. On motion the complaint was dismissed because of the statute of limitations. The respondent filed an appeal but it was also dismissed because the notice of appeal had been filed more than 45 days after entry of the judgment of dismissal. R. 2:4--1(a). When Mr. and Mrs. Fusco's new attorney inquired as to the status of the appeal by letter dated January 21, 1976, respondent did not reply. The attorney's two telephone calls to respondent went unanswered. The attorney then wrote another letter to respondent who finally responded indicating the appeal was pending when in fact it had been dismissed.

The Monmouth County Ethics Committee, although concluding there was no unethical or unprofessional conduct filed a report with the Court in which it recommended a reprimand because his 'professional conduct was deficient, improper and not in the best traditions of the legal profession.' II. The Rosenfield Complaint

Marvin J. Rosenfield was defended by respondent in a municipal court proceeding on July 26, 1971. Upon being convicted, Rosenfield stated that he wanted to appeal from the judgment. Respondent advised Rosenfield to consider it further and 'get back to me.' In the next day or two, Rosenfield telephoned and advised respondent to proceed with the appeal. Rosenfield was told that $60 was required for the filing fee and a deposit for the transcript. He then went to respondent's office on August 3 and gave him a check for $60, which respondent accepted and deposited.

Respondent admitted receipt of a letter on August 14, 1971 in which Rosenfield sought information on the status of the appeal. Respondent never answered that letter. Rosenfield telephoned respondent on numerous occasions and left messages for a return call. None was made. He wrote respondent about seven letters which were never answered.

Rosenfield had sent respondent a check for $20 on August 14, 1971, $15 on August 20, and $10 on September 1, in part payment of respondent's services in the municipal court. Since these checks were not cashed and the telephone calls and correspondence remained unanswered, Rosenfield visited respondent at his office on December 15. Respondent then told Rosenfield for the first time that the appeal had not been filed, and that he was returning the three checks which totalled $45.

The Monmouth County Ethics Committee found that a presentment was not warranted but that the respondent should be reprimanded. Thereafter upon direction by the Court, the Committee submitted a presentment in which it found substantially the facts recited above.

III. The O'Connell Complaint

The charges in this complaint involve respondent Loring and respondent James F. Houston. In November 1973, Mr. and Mrs. Timothy P. O'Connell retained the respondent Loring's law firm, Loring and Miele, to represent them in connection with their purchase of a home. Respondent Houston, who was employed by Loring and Miele, was in charge of the matter.

The property had previously been sold to a Mr. and Mrs. Hughes but they had refused to consummate the transaction. Loring and Miele had represented Mr. and Mrs. Hughes and had had a search and survey prepared. The search had been made by Joseph Hayduk who worked for the Colonial Abstract Company which during this time was owned by Loring and Miele. The previously completed search and survey were used for the O'Connell transaction.

The O'Connell closing occurred on December 28, 1973. Respondent Houston represented the buyers. Although the survey was certified to Mr. and Mrs. Thomas J. Hughes, and a title binder was also addressed to them, he delivered these documents to Mr. O'Connell without explanation.

Shortly after taking possession on or about December 31, 1973, there was a severe storm and as a result, Mr. O'Connell discovered a water condition in the driveway of his new home. When he told his neighbor that he proposed to repair the driveway, he was advised not to do so because the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority had a ten-foot easement through the driveway where it planned to install a sewer pipe. Mr. O'Connell immediately telephoned Mr. Houston at his home. He replied, 'You want me to run back to the office and check it out? There is nothing I can do anyway until we get back.' On his return to the office, he called Hayduk. Hayduk then rechedked the records and discovered that he had omitted the easement from the search.

Mr. O'Connell telephoned the office several times, but on each occasion he was told that respondent Houston was busy and that the call would be returned. It never was. Mr. 'O'Connell then sent respondent Houston a registered letter dated January 8, 1974. Mr. O' Connell wrote that he had been told that the file would be checked by Wednesday, January 2, 1974; that when he called on January 3, 1974 the secretary said the title searcher was investigating; that his own investigation disclosed the easement; and that '(s)ince you have failed to answer my calls, I feel that for some reason you are trying to avoid me.' Houston turned the matter over to the respondent Loring who suggested in a latter of January 10, 1974 to O'Connell that they meet. A conference occurred on January 26, 1974 at the respondent Loring's office. Loring disclaimed any responsibility and asserted that the culpability was attributable to the searcher or title company, even though O'Connell had not purchased any fee or mortgagee title insurance. (The property was not being encumbered with a new mortgage.) He did not explain the relationship of the searcher to the Colonial Abstract...