Matter of Silvia

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Sogliuzzo

    DRB 20-253 (N.J. Jun. 11, 2021)

    The OAE argued that the above facts constituted clear and convincing evidence that respondent was the attorney for the Grimley estate, and that he had a duty to maintain the estate's funds inviolate, which he stipulated that he failed to do. Nonetheless, citing In re Silvia, 152 N.J. 243 (1998), the OAE asserted that respondent's denial of the existence of an attorney-client relationship "does not prevent the finding of such a relationship or the knowing misappropriation of funds." The OAE noted that, in Silvia, the Court found that the actions of Silvia necessitated a finding that he was in an attorney-client relationship, and that he must be disbarred for knowingly misappropriating funds.

  2. In re Schultz

    Docket No. DRB 19-143 (N.J. Dec. 5, 2019)

    With two small exceptions, there is no evidence that Mesyna paid him for those services. The OAE has requested respondent's disbarment based on the venality of his conduct vis-à-vis Mesyna, citing In re Silvia, 152 N.J. 243 (1998), In re Wolk, 82 N.J. 326 (1980), In re Ort, 134 N.J. 146 (1993), In re Zeitler, 182 N.J. 389 (2005), In re Frost, 171 N.J. 308 (2002), and In re Torre, 223 N.J. 538 (2015). We, however, find respondent's misconduct to be significantly less egregious than the conduct addressed in those cases.