Opinion
088489
05-03-2024
IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH RAKOFSKY, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 034462009)
ORDER
The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 23-040, recommending that Joseph Rakofsky of Newark, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2010, should be suspended for one year for having violated RPC 1.6(a) (failing to maintain confidential client information), RPC 1.16(d) (failing to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation), RPC 3.1 (engaging in frivolous litigation) (three instances), RPC 3.2 (failing to treat all persons involved with the litigation process with courtesy and consideration), RPC 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation) (three instances), and RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) (four instances); And the Disciplinary Review Board having further recommended that as conditions precedent to reinstatement, respondent must (1) demonstrate respondent’s fitness to practice law, as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, and (2) complete a continuing education course in legal ethics and professionalism approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics;
And Joseph Rakofsky having been ordered to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;
And good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that Joseph Rakofsky is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, and until further order of the Court, effective June 2, 2024; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall demonstrate respondent's fitness to practice law, as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, and complete a continuing education course in legal ethics and professionalism approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, as preconditions of reinstatement; 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.