Although the OAE asserted respondent separately violated this Rule by abandoning his clients in the Cleary and Gether/Wilkins matters, we will, ordinarily, restrict findings of client abandonment, in violation of RPC 1.16(d), to matters where the attorney has physically abandoned their law practice, or otherwise cannot be located. See, e.g., In the Matter of George R. Saponaro, DRB 20-207 (April 1, 2021) (attorney abandoned his law practice and could not be located), so ordered, 249 N.J. 352 (2022)).
Similar to this matter, in an earlier case this year concerning that attorney, the Board decided to suspend him for one year, for various misconduct. In the Matter of George R. Saponaro, DRB 20-207 (April 1, 2021). However, because that decision remained pending with the Court at the time the second Saponaro matter, cited here, was before us
In an earlier case this year concerning that same respondent, we decided to suspend him for one year, for various misconduct. In the Matter of George R. Saponaro, DRB 20-207 (April 1, 2021). However, because that decision remained pending with the Court at the time the second Saponaro matter, cited here, was before us, that discipline was not yet final, and, thus, was not considered in aggravation.
We also ordered respondent to disgorge his entire $2,000 retainer to his client, Ana Block, and, due to the nature of respondent's sudden abandonment of his clients, to provide proof to the OAE of his fitness to practice law, as attested by a qualified mental health professional approved by the OAE. In the Matter of George R. Saponaro, DRB 20-207 (April 1, 2021). That matter is pending with the Court.