Opinion
Docket No. DRB 13-360
02-25-2014
Re: In the Matter of Joseph Albano
BONNIE C. FROST, ESQ., CHAIR EDNA Y. BAUGH, ESQ., VICE-CHAIR BRUCE W. CLARK, ESQ. JEANNE DOREMUS HON. MAURICE J. GALLIPOLI THOMAS J. HOBERMAN ANNE C. SINGER, ESQ. MORRIS YAMNER, ESQ. ROBERT C. ZMIRICH ISABEL FRANK ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ELLEN A. BRODSKY ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL LILLIAN LEWIN BARRY R. PETERSEN JR. DONA S. SEROTA -TESCHNER COLIN T. TAMS KATHRYN ANNE WINTERLE ASSISTANT COUNSEL
BONNIE C. FROST, ESQ., CHAIR
EDNA Y. BAUGH, ESQ., VICE-CHAIR
BRUCE W. CLARK, ESQ.
JEANNE DOREMUS
HON. MAURICE J. GALLIPOLI
THOMAS J. HOBERMAN
ANNE C. SINGER, ESQ.
MORRIS YAMNER, ESQ.
ROBERT C. ZMIRICH ISABEL FRANK
ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL ELLEN A. BRODSKY
ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL LILLIAN LEWIN
BARRY R. PETERSEN JR.
DONA S. SEROTA -TESCHNER
COLIN T. TAMS
KATHRYN ANNE WINTERLE
ASSISTANT COUNSEL RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX Charles Centinaro, Director
Office of Attorney Ethics
P.O. Box 963
Trenton, New Jersey 08625 District Docket Nos. XIV-2012-0303E; XIV-2012-0304E; and XIV-2012-0305E Dear Mr. Centinaro:
The Disciplinary Review Board has reviewed the motion for discipline by consent (reprimand or such lesser discipline as the Board may deem appropriate), filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics pursuant to R. 1:20-10(b). Following a review of the motion, the Board concluded that the stipulated facts were not sufficiently detailed to enable it to determine what occurred in each of the ten matters. The Board, therefore, determined to deny the motion and to remand the matter for either the filing of a more detailed stipulation, rather than a motion for discipline by consent, or the filing of a detailed complaint followed by a hearing.
Specifically, the stipulation of discipline by consent did not disclose the full names of most of the clients, the number of clients involved in each matter, at which law firm respondent worked when representing the client(s), the nature of the cases in most of the matters, whether respondent performed any services in the cases, whether the clients suffered permanent harm, whether respondent took over problematic cases from another attorney, while at the Fusco and Macaluso firm, or whether he left instructions for a successor attorney for the cases left behind at the Seigel Capozzi firm. In addition, although the stipulation states that respondent suffered from severe depression at the time, it does not include any support for the condition or proof of treatment and it did not link the depression to the stipulated misconduct.
In light of the foregoing, more specific information is required to enable the Board to assess the appropriate degree of discipline in this case.
The Board did not retain jurisdiction.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Isabel Frank
Acting Chief Counsel IF/sl c: Bonnie C. Frost, Chair (via e-mail)
Disciplinary Review Board
Christina Blunda Kennedy, Deputy Ethics Counsel
Office of Attorney Ethics
Frank Covello, Esq., Respondent's Counsel