From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Perlman

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Jan 31, 2020
241 N.J. 95 (N.J. 2020)

Opinion

D-13 September Term 2019 083474

01-31-2020

In the MATTER OF Jeffrey L. PERLMAN, An Attorney At Law (Attorney No. 023441983)


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 19-037, concluding that that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-14(a)(E), Jeffrey L. Perlman of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, and who has been suspended from the practice of law since August 3, 2018, should be suspended from practice for a period of one year based on discipline imposed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for conduct that in New Jersey constitutes violations of RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed of the status of the matter), RPC 1.4(c) (failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), RPC 1.16(a)(1) (failure to withdraw for the representation when continued representation will violate the RPCs), RPC 1.16(c) (failure to comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when termination a representation), RPC 8.1(d) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that the term of suspension should be concurrent with the one-year term of suspension effective August 3, 2018;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to submit proof of his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that Jeffrey L. Perlman is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, retroactive to August 3, 2018; and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to the reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent shall submit to the Office of Attorney Ethics proof of his fitness to practice as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to 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.


Summaries of

In re Perlman

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Jan 31, 2020
241 N.J. 95 (N.J. 2020)
Case details for

In re Perlman

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF Jeffrey L. PERLMAN, An Attorney At Law (Attorney No…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: Jan 31, 2020

Citations

241 N.J. 95 (N.J. 2020)
225 A.3d 784

Citing Cases

In re McWhirkan

mitigation, the attorney had no prior discipline and was battling alcoholism at the time of the misconduct);…

In re Lenti

longed period of four years; in mitigation, the attorney had no ethics history, suffered from serious mental…