In the third New Jersey disciplinary matter, the Supreme Court of New Jersey censured respondent for violating New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 1.3 (lack of diligence), 1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information), 1.5(b) (failure to set forth in writing the basis or rate of the fee), and 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities). See In re Gonzalez, 244 N.J. 271, 238 A.3d 1126, 1126 (2020) (order) (Gonzalez III). The underlying facts were that respondent represented two juvenile asylum-seekers but failed to appear at their removal hearing, resulting in an immigration court ordering the boys’ removal from the United States.
In 2020, in connection with respondent's second default matter, we determined that respondent had violated RPC 1.3; RPC 1.4(b); RPC 1.5(b); and RPC 8.1(b). In the Matter of Nelson Gonzalez, DRB 19-363 at 22 (June 23, 2020) (three Members voting to impose a censure, three Members voting to impose a three-month suspension, and three Members not participating); In re Gonzalez, 244 N.J. 271 (2020) (imposing a censure) (Gonzalez III).
However, greater discipline has been imposed on attorneys who, in addition to violating RPC 1.5(b), have defaulted, have a disciplinary history, or have committed other acts of misconduct. See, e.g., In re Gonzalez, 244 N.J. 271 (2020) (in a default matter, censure for an attorney who failed to provide in writing the basis or rate of his fee in two immigration matters involving children; thereafter, respondent failed to meet with the children to evaluate the merits of their asylum claims; respondent failed to appear at a removal hearing and consequently, the court ordered the children's removal from the United States; attorney had previously received a three-month suspension); In re Yannon, 220 N.J. 581 (2015) (attorney failed to memorialize the basis or rate of his fee in two real estate transactions, a violation of RPC 1.5(b); discipline enhanced from an admonition based on the attorney's prior one-year suspension); In re Gazdzinski, 220 N.J. 218 (2015) (attorney failed to prepare a written fee agreement in a matrimonial matter; the attorney also failed to comply with the district ethics committee inves