Opinion
D-10 September Term 2022 087523
05-16-2023
In the MATTER OF Ulysses ISA, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 042302006)
ORDER The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 22-088, concluding that Ulysses Isa of Union City, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2006, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since May 9, 2018, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.5(b) (failure to set forth in writing the basis or rate of the fee), RPC 1.15(d) (failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 1:21-6), RPC 5.3(a) (failure to supervise nonlawyer staff), RPC 5.3(b) (failure to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of a nonlawyer employee is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities); And the Disciplinary Review Board having noted that the conditions precedent to respondent's reinstatement to the practice of law previously imposed by the Court remain in place;
And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined respondent should, as an additional condition, pay restitution to Nury Nunez and Marcos Arroyo; and good cause appearing; It is ORDERED that Ulysses Isa is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three-months and until the further Order of the Court, effective June 12, 2023; and it is further
ORDERED that conditions precedent to respondent's reinstatement to the practice of law previously imposed by the Court remain in place; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall pay restitution in the amount of $4,000 to Nury Nunez and $300 to Marcos Arroyo and to provide proof of such payment to the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent 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.