March 8, 2006
Attorney Discipline: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Mary Maudsley
Chair of N. J. Supreme Court, Disciplinary Appointments Review Board, and Attorney
Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the 64th Year
President William Haynes called the meeting of the Old Guard to order at 10:15 on 8 March, 2006. The invocation was led by John Marks.
Roger Moseley read the minutes of the previous week's program.
Barney Barnhart introduced his guest, Bruce LaBar; several visitors were also present. Phil Cruickshank had his wife, Natalie; Win Pike brought his lawyer daughter Kristina, and Ernie Schlieben introduced his son Paul.
Don Dickason announced that members who have questions about our web site should consult Bruno Walmsley, our web master. Don then covered his mouth with a yellow mask that, he claimed, signified egg on his face. This was made necessary because Don mistakenly announced the demise of Stuart Carothers. The latter, very much alive and present at the meeting, explained that the mistake was due to the similarity of his last name with another less fortunate person.
There were 89 people present.
Lee Neuwirth introduced the speaker, Mary Maudsley, who is Chair of the New Jersey Supreme Court's Disciplinary Review Board. Miss Maudsley is a cum laude graduate of Washington University and received her law degree from Temple University. She has practiced as a certified trial attorney in New Jersey for over thirty years.
Ms. Maudsley began by describing an incident that took place when she was a young lawyer. She received a phone message asking her to call the office of what was then known as Central Ethics, a department she thought of as the equivalent of the KGB. After several days of playing telephone tag with the caller, during which time she obsessively examined her conscience for signs of possible infractions of the rules of legal conduct, Miss Maudsley found that the caller actually wanted to invite her to become a member of the Supreme Court's Ethics Committee.
She explained that the procedures by which lawyers are held accountable are simple and straightforward. Local committees, known as District Ethics Committees, receive complaints against attorneys. Mr. Neuwirth belongs to such a committee, as do other members of the public, who in Miss Maudsleys's words: “bring with them an objective viewpoint, untainted by their experience in the profession and with the kind of issues that the disciplinary system deals with."
If the District committee finds a possible violation of the rules of professional conduct, it issues a complaint. If it appears that an attorney must be disciplined, the matter is placed before the Disciplinary Review Board for resolution. The most serious infractions invoke the so-called Wilson Rule, in which disbarment is the certain penalty for attorneys who, for whatever reason, take money from a client without that client's knowledge or consent. Miss Maudsley was careful to make the point that in taking action, it is the job of the Board to make sure that the punishment is consistent with discipline imposed across the state as well as with similar infractions across time.
As she pointed out, “Infractions change and the discipline for infractions changes also." In one case, a lawyer took his fee in advance from an escrow account that he was holding for a forthcoming real estate transaction. That sort of thing was not uncommon in the past but is no longer tolerated. The lawyer in question was permanently disbarred, a result Miss Maudsley characterized as a form of capital punishment.
Another category of punishment permits temporary suspension of an attorney's license until the Supreme Court determines that the suspension is ended. A less onerous punishment is a public reprimand, invoked when the client is not seriously hurt and the attorney's guilt is not clearly established.
Miss Maudsley also referred to the need for lawyers to beware of conflicts of interest. She mentioned a situation that arose in her own firm when she and another member of the firm interviewed both parties in a divorce case without realizing that the wife was using her maiden name. The lawyers were required to withdraw from the case.
Lastly, the speaker discussed her initial experiences in being a woman in a traditional male profession. These ranged from being called "honey" by colleagues, being mistaken for a secretary, or receiving an invitation from a judge to enter the judicial chambers to look at photographs. Miss Maudsley concluded her interesting and informative talk by noting that charges of harassment now can be brought against attorneys who make inappropriate gestures toward female clients.
One can conclude that New Jerseyans are fortunate to live in a state that possesses an extensive, effective and extraordinarily efficient disciplinary system in place for handling grievances against attorneys.
We can avoid the advice given by Dick the butcher to the aspiring monarch Jack Cade in the second part of Shakepeare's Henry the Sixth. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemary O’Brien
Roger Moseley read the minutes of the previous week's program.
Barney Barnhart introduced his guest, Bruce LaBar; several visitors were also present. Phil Cruickshank had his wife, Natalie; Win Pike brought his lawyer daughter Kristina, and Ernie Schlieben introduced his son Paul.
Don Dickason announced that members who have questions about our web site should consult Bruno Walmsley, our web master. Don then covered his mouth with a yellow mask that, he claimed, signified egg on his face. This was made necessary because Don mistakenly announced the demise of Stuart Carothers. The latter, very much alive and present at the meeting, explained that the mistake was due to the similarity of his last name with another less fortunate person.
There were 89 people present.
Lee Neuwirth introduced the speaker, Mary Maudsley, who is Chair of the New Jersey Supreme Court's Disciplinary Review Board. Miss Maudsley is a cum laude graduate of Washington University and received her law degree from Temple University. She has practiced as a certified trial attorney in New Jersey for over thirty years.
Ms. Maudsley began by describing an incident that took place when she was a young lawyer. She received a phone message asking her to call the office of what was then known as Central Ethics, a department she thought of as the equivalent of the KGB. After several days of playing telephone tag with the caller, during which time she obsessively examined her conscience for signs of possible infractions of the rules of legal conduct, Miss Maudsley found that the caller actually wanted to invite her to become a member of the Supreme Court's Ethics Committee.
She explained that the procedures by which lawyers are held accountable are simple and straightforward. Local committees, known as District Ethics Committees, receive complaints against attorneys. Mr. Neuwirth belongs to such a committee, as do other members of the public, who in Miss Maudsleys's words: “bring with them an objective viewpoint, untainted by their experience in the profession and with the kind of issues that the disciplinary system deals with."
If the District committee finds a possible violation of the rules of professional conduct, it issues a complaint. If it appears that an attorney must be disciplined, the matter is placed before the Disciplinary Review Board for resolution. The most serious infractions invoke the so-called Wilson Rule, in which disbarment is the certain penalty for attorneys who, for whatever reason, take money from a client without that client's knowledge or consent. Miss Maudsley was careful to make the point that in taking action, it is the job of the Board to make sure that the punishment is consistent with discipline imposed across the state as well as with similar infractions across time.
As she pointed out, “Infractions change and the discipline for infractions changes also." In one case, a lawyer took his fee in advance from an escrow account that he was holding for a forthcoming real estate transaction. That sort of thing was not uncommon in the past but is no longer tolerated. The lawyer in question was permanently disbarred, a result Miss Maudsley characterized as a form of capital punishment.
Another category of punishment permits temporary suspension of an attorney's license until the Supreme Court determines that the suspension is ended. A less onerous punishment is a public reprimand, invoked when the client is not seriously hurt and the attorney's guilt is not clearly established.
Miss Maudsley also referred to the need for lawyers to beware of conflicts of interest. She mentioned a situation that arose in her own firm when she and another member of the firm interviewed both parties in a divorce case without realizing that the wife was using her maiden name. The lawyers were required to withdraw from the case.
Lastly, the speaker discussed her initial experiences in being a woman in a traditional male profession. These ranged from being called "honey" by colleagues, being mistaken for a secretary, or receiving an invitation from a judge to enter the judicial chambers to look at photographs. Miss Maudsley concluded her interesting and informative talk by noting that charges of harassment now can be brought against attorneys who make inappropriate gestures toward female clients.
One can conclude that New Jerseyans are fortunate to live in a state that possesses an extensive, effective and extraordinarily efficient disciplinary system in place for handling grievances against attorneys.
We can avoid the advice given by Dick the butcher to the aspiring monarch Jack Cade in the second part of Shakepeare's Henry the Sixth. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemary O’Brien