Opinion
Docket No. DRB 14-046
06-16-2014
Re: In the Matter of Justin A. Pinck
BONNIE C. FROST, ESQ., CHAIR EDNA Y. BAOGH, ESQ., VICE-CHAIR BRUCE W. CLARK, ESQ. HON. MAURICE J. GALUPOLI THOMAS J. HOBERMAN ELLEN RIVERA ANNE C. SINGER, ESQ. MORRIS YAMNER, ESQ. ROBERT C. ZMIRICH ELLEN A. BRODSKY CHIEFCOUNSEL ISABEL FRANK DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL LILLIAN LEWIN BARRY R. PETERSEN JR. DONA S. SEROTA -TESCHNER COLIN T. TAMS KATHRYN ANNE WINTERLE ASSISTANT COUNSEL
BONNIE C. FROST, ESQ., CHAIR
EDNA Y. BAOGH, ESQ., VICE-CHAIR
BRUCE W. CLARK, ESQ.
HON. MAURICE J. GALUPOLI
THOMAS J. HOBERMAN
ELLEN RIVERA
ANNE C. SINGER, ESQ.
MORRIS YAMNER, ESQ.
ROBERT C. ZMIRICH
ELLEN A. BRODSKY
CHIEFCOUNSEL
ISABEL FRANK
DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL
LILLIAN LEWIN
BARRY R. PETERSEN JR.
DONA S. SEROTA -TESCHNER
COLIN T. TAMS
KATHRYN ANNE WINTERLE
ASSISTANT COUNSEL
RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX
Mark Neary, Clerk
Supreme Court of New Jersey
P.O. Box 970
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0962
Dear Mr. Neary:
The Disciplinary Review Board reviewed the motion for discipline by consent (three-month suspension or such lesser discipline as the Board deems warranted) filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics in the above matter, pursuant to l:20-10(b). Following a review of the record, the Board determined to grant the motion. In the Board's view, a three-month suspension is the appropriate measure of discipline for respondent's misconduct, which occurred before and during the sale of the law practice of Pinck & Pinck.
Specifically, when respondent was selling the law practice that he shared with Lawrence R. Pinck, he violated RPC 1.17(c)(2) by failing to timely notify 130 clients of the proposed sale, as required by the rule. He also violated RPC 8.4(a) by failing to ensure that the purchasing attorney pubished a notice of sale.
Respondent also stipulated that, in nine client matters, he engaged in gross neglect, a pattern of neglect, and lack of diligence. In seven of those matters, he failed to adequately communicate with the clients. He, thus, violated RPC 1.1(a), RPC 1.1(b), RPC 1,3, and RPC 1.4(b). He also misrepresented the status of the case in three of the matters, in violation of RPC 8.4(c). Finally, respondent violated RPC 1.16(d) by failing to return files and unearned fees'or costs in twenty-eight of the client matters transferred under the terms of the sale.
The Board dismissed the RPC 1.17(d) charge. The Board found no evidence of a violation of the rule, which does not obligate the selling attorney to prevent the purchasing attorney from charging the clients additional legal fees, after the sale.
The Board likened some of the violations in this case to those found in In re Tarter, 216 N.J. 425 (2014) (three-month suspension for attorney who was found guilty of misconduct in eighteen matters, specifically, lack of diligence and a pattern of neglect in fifteen of those matters and failure to withdraw from the representation and to properly terminate the representation in all eighteen matters; in mitigation, the attorney had no prior discipline and was battling active alcoholism at the time of the misconduct). As to respondent's violation of RPC 1.17(c), in the only case of its kind involving this rule, an admonition was imposed. See In the Matter of Mark L. Breitman, DRB 13-382 (February 18, 2014)(attorney purchased another attorney's law practice, which included at least fifty-eight active cases, and failed to publish the required notice of sale in the New Jersey Law Journal; although Breitman claimed that the seller had agreed to do so, the Board found that, under RPC 1.17(c)(3), the responsibility for publication was Breitman's alone, as the purchaser). Here, the Board found that the additional finding of a violation of RPC 1.17(c) did not warrant enhancing the sanction beyond the three-month suspension imposed in Tarter.
In mitigation, the Board considered that respondent has no prior discipline since his 2006 admission to the New Jersey bar.
Enclosed are the following documents:
1. Notice of motion for discipline by consent, dated February 25, 2014.
2. Stipulation of discipline by consent, dated February 25, 2014.
3. Affidavit of consent, dated February 25, 2014.
4. Ethics history, dated June 16, 2014.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Ellen A. Brodsky
Chief Counsel
EAB/paa
encls.
cc: Bonnie C. Frost, Chair, Disciplinary Review Board (w/o encls.)
Charles Centinaro, Director, Office of Attorney Ethics (w/o encls.)
Michael J. Sweeney, First Assistant Ethics Counsel
Office of Attorney Ethics Justin A. Pinck, Respondent (w/o encls.)
D-130 September Term 2013
074493
IN THE MATTER OF JUSTIN A. PINCK, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (Attorney No. 019722006)
ORDER
This matter have been duly presented pursuant to Rule 1:20-10(b), following the granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 14-046 of JUSTIN A. PINCK, formerly of CLIFTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2006;
And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RFC 1.1(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.1(b)(pattern of neglect), RPC 1.3(lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b)(failure to communicate with the client), RPC 1.16(d)(failure to take steps to protect the client's interests upon termination of representation), RPC 1.17(c) (2) (failure to provide written advance notice to clients of the sale of a law practice and to obtain the client's consent to new representation), RPC 1.17(c)(3)(failure to cause the announcement or notice of the purchase and transfer of the law firm to be published thirty days in advance, contrary to RPC 8.4(a)), RPC 1.17(d)(fees charged to clients shall not be increased by reason of the sale of the law practice) and RPC 8.4(a)(violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so or do so through the acts of another), and RPC 8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, deceit or misrepresentation);
And the parties having agreed that respondent's conduct violated RPC 1.1(a), RPC 1.1(b), RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(b), RPC 1.16(d), RPC 1.17(c) (2), RPC 1.17 (c) (3), RPC 1.17(d), and RPC 8.4(a) and RPC 8.4(c), and that said conduct warrants a three-month suspension from practice or lesser discipline;
And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined to dismiss the charged violation of RPC 1.17(d);
And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a three-month suspension from practice is the appropriate discipline for respondent's unethical conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket Nos. XIV-2013-0260E, 0261E, 0262E, 0263E, 0264E, 0265E, 0266E, 0267E, 0269E, 0270E, 0272E, 0279E, 0284E, 0285E, 0286E, and 0287E, 0288E, 0289E, 0340E, 0341E, 0342E, 0423E, 0424E, 0425E, 0444E, 0494E and 0668E;
And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with Rule 1:20-16(e);
And good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that JUSTIN A. PINCK, formerly of CLIFTON, is hereby suspended from the practice of law for period of three months, effective August 16, 2014, and until respondent satisfies the fee arbitration determinations and pays the sanction as ordered by the Court on July 17, 2014 (D-91-13; 074119), and until the further Order of the Court; 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(c); 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.
WITNESS, the Honorable Stuart Rabner, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 23rd day of July, 2014.
/s/
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT