From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Eagan

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 24, 2024
256 N.J. 322 (N.J. 2024)

Opinion

088682

01-24-2024

IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN DAVID EAGAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 041801997)


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 23-089, recommending as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-13(c)(2), that Martin David Eagan, formerly of Morristown, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since February 24, 2022, should be disbarred following his guilty plea and conviction in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court) for one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 1349, and for violating RPC 1.15(a) (knowing misappropriation of escrow funds), RPC 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer), RPC 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and the principles of In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451, 409 A.2d 1153 (1979) and In re Hollendonner, 102 N.J. 21, 504 A.2d 1174 (1985);

And the District Court having ordered respondent to pay $578,837.13 in joint and several restitution for the economic harm caused to ten victims of the bank fraud scheme;

And Martin David Eagan having been ordered to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And the Court having determined that a two-year prospective suspension from the practice of law is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that Martin David Eagan be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, and until further order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that at the time of respondent’s petition for reinstatement, to the extent that the restitution ordered by the District Court has not been fully satisfied, an order for reinstatement shall require respondent to make full restitution and report every ninety days to the Office of Attorney Ethics certifying respondent’s progress made in good faith toward full restitution until fully satisfied; and it is further

ORDERED that Martin David Eagan comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(d); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

JUSTICES PATTERSON, SOLOMON, WAINER APTER, FASCIALE, and NORIEGA joined in this order. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS voted to disbar respondent.


Summaries of

In re Eagan

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 24, 2024
256 N.J. 322 (N.J. 2024)
Case details for

In re Eagan

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF MARTIN DAVID EAGAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jan 24, 2024

Citations

256 N.J. 322 (N.J. 2024)
307 A.3d 1191