Rosen, Matter of

Decision Date01 December 1981
Citation438 A.2d 316,88 N.J. 1
PartiesIn the Matter of Louis A. ROSEN, An Attorney At Law.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

David E. Johnson, Jr., Staff Atty., Trenton, for complainant Disciplinary Review Bd. (Colette A. Coolbaugh, Trenton, Secretary, attorney).

Charles Frankel, Oakhurst, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

On June 28, 1977 respondent Louis A. Rosen was found guilty at a jury trial of two counts of attempted subornation of perjury in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:131-1 and N.J.S.A. 2A:85-5. Rosen attempted to procure false testimony favorable to his client who had been charged with criminal assault in a municipal court case. To this end, he offered to represent the assault victim, Thomas Craver, without fee in a careless driving case arising out of the same incident in exchange for Craver's favorable testimony. Rosen also sought to arrange for his client to pay any fine imposed on Craver in the careless driving case. Rosen's conviction was upheld on appeal.

Rosen admits that he offered to represent Craver gratis in the careless driving case and that he conveyed to Craver's father the offer of Rosen's client to pay any fine imposed on Craver. Rosen has explained that he was attempting to resolve the neighborhood dispute between the parties, rather than attempting to procure false testimony. The jury believed that the assistance offered to Craver by Rosen was intended to induce Craver to alter his anticipated testimony in the assault case against Rosen's client.

A tape recording of a telephone conversation between Rosen and Craver's father, introduced into evidence at Rosen's trial, supports the jury finding that Rosen's intent was to elicit false testimony in exchange for legal assistance. At one point during the telephone conversation, when Rosen was asked about his client's offer to pay the fine, if any, imposed on Craver in the careless driving case, Rosen said:

If he has to have the fine, uh, it is exactly what I told you before, I don't want to say it on the phone, I don't know if you are recording.

At another point, apparently speaking of Craver's proposed testimony, Rosen said Like I say, you're really doing the right thing I don't think you are teaching your son wrong because that's life and that's the way the Courts are. In every case, I don't care if it's a car accident, okay, people come in and they lie, you know, a guy goes through a red light, he says he doesn't go through a red light, you know, he says the light was green and the other guy says the light was green and when, it has to be red on one side, but that's a fact of life which I guess people have to live with, people are liars and in Courts you can't believe half the things people say, but I think you are doing the right thing because at least this way you have a chance, you know, the other way, uh, he would definitely be found guilty and would definitely be fined and he could end up, if Reisberg wants to at a later time he could end up with the lawsuit on the...

On the basis of the above conversation and the complete record, the District IX Ethics Committee (Monmouth County) found that respondent was conscious of the impropriety of his actions when they occurred. It determined that his conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(3), (5) and (6). Upon a review of that record, the Disciplinary Review Board determined that the conclusions of the Committee...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Greenberg, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 17 Julio 1998
    ...discipline and, if so, the extent thereof.' " In re Mischlich, 60 N.J. [590,] 593, 292 A.2d 23 (citations omitted); see In re Rosen, 88 N.J. [1,] 3, 438 A.2d 316; In re Mirabelli, 79 N.J. [597,] 601, 401 A.2d 1090; In re La Duca, 62 N.J. [133,] at 136, 299 A.2d 405. Similarly, we consider e......
  • Yaccarino, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 13 Octubre 1989
    ...perjury. In the course of this conduct, respondent betrayed, subverted, and corrupted the system he swore to serve. See In re Rosen, 88 N.J. 1, 2, 438 A.2d 316 (1981); In re La Duca, 62 N.J. 133, 140, 299 A.2d 405 (1973); In re Foster, 60 N.J. 134, 136, 286 A.2d 508 (1972). Judicial miscond......
  • Conway, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1987
    ...of discipline and the severity of the sanction to be imposed. See Matter of Johnson, 102 N.J. 504, 509 A.2d 171 (1986); Matter of Rosen, 88 N.J. 1, 438 A.2d 316 (1981). Accordingly, in dealing with this issue, we focus first upon the underlying facts and then turn to an assessment of these ......
  • Imbriani, Matter of
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1997
    ...proceedings. 3 In re Goldberg, 142 N.J. 557, 666 A.2d 529 (1995); In re Magid, 139 N.J. 449, 451, 655 A.2d 916 (1995); In re Rosen, 88 N.J. 1, 3, 438 A.2d 316 (1981). When imposing attorney discipline based on a criminal conviction, we review not only a criminal conviction, but all of the s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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