, it has been more finely tuned to the factual scenarios presented, as demonstrated in recent decisions. See, e.g., In the Matter of Dominic V. Caruso, DRB 20-191 (April 30, 2021) (we found that the attorney was required to hold a bulk sales escrow, inviolate, until he satisfied a condition precedent - the receipt of a clearance letter issued by the State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury, Division of Taxation; we, thus, recommended to the Court that the attorney be disbarred for his knowing misappropriation of escrow funds; our decision is pending with the Court, which has scheduled an order to show cause); In re Mason, 244 N.J. 506 (2021) (we found that the escrow provision of a corporate operating agreement bound the attorney to safeguard investors' funds and to satisfy conditions precedent prior to any disbursement of those funds; the Court agreed, and the attorney was disbarred for his knowing misappropriation of the escrow funds); and In re Aaroe, 241 N.J. 532 (2020) (we found that, collectively, the documents underlying the transaction functioned as an