IN THE MATTER OF ADAM KENNETH BLOCK AN ATTORNEY AT LAW
Docket No. XIV-2016-0470E
Y. BAUGH, VICE-CHAIR
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
matter was before us by way of default filed by the Office of
Attorney Ethics (OAE), pursuant to R. 1:20-4(f). The
complaint charged respondent with violations of RPC
5.5(a)(1) (engaging in the unauthorized practice of law),
RPC 8.1(b) (failing to cooperate with disciplinary
authorities), and RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the administration of justice). For the
reasons detailed below, we determine to impose no further
was admitted to the New Jersey and New York bars in 1993.
September 26, 2005 to June 12, 2006; September 24, 2007 to
December 11, 2012; September 30, 2013 to May 30, 2014; and
August 25 to October 9, 2015, respondent was ineligible to
practice law for failure to pay the annual attorney
assessment to the Mew Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client
Protection (the Fund).
has an extensive ethics history. On March 7, 2013, he
received a reprimand for practicing while ineligible. In
re Block, 213 N.J. 8 (2013). That matter proceeded on a
February 14, 2014, respondent was censured for again
practicing while ineligible. In re Block, 217 N.J.
21 (2014). That matter also proceeded by way of default.
November 20, 2014, respondent received a second censure. In
that case, we determined not to impose additional discipline
for his underlying conduct of practicing while ineligible,
because that misconduct took place during the same timeframe
as the prior matter for which he was censured. However, based
on the fact that respondent had defaulted for the third time,
he received an additional censure for multiple failures to
cooperate with disciplinary authorities. In re
Block, 220 N.J. 33 (2014).
October 9, 2015, respondent was suspended for six months,
also in a default matter, for gross neglect, lack of
diligence, and failure to communicate in one client matter.
Further, while representing that client, respondent was
ineligible to practice law. He also failed to cooperate with
disciplinary authorities. In re Block, 222 N.J. 609
recently, on February 9, 2018, the Court entered an Order
suspending respondent for one year, for practicing while
ineligible, practicing while suspended, and failing to
cooperate with disciplinary authorities. That matter also
proceeded by way of default. In re Block, D-206
September Term 2016. The specifics of respondent's
conduct underlying this matter are discussed in more detail
of process in this matter was proper. On June 29, 2017, the
OAE sent a copy of the complaint to respondent at the last
known home address listed in the records of the Fund, by both
regular and certified mail, return receipt requested. On
August 4, 2017, the certified mail was returned unclaimed;
the regular mail was not returned.
August 23, 2017, the OAE sent respondent another letter, to
the same address listed with the Fund, by regular and
certified mail, return receipt requested, informing him that,
if he failed to file a verified answer to the complaint
within five days of the date of the letter, the allegations
of the complaint would be deemed admitted, the entire record
would be certified directly to us for the imposition of
discipline, and the complaint would be deemed amended to
include a violation of RPC 8.1(b). Neither the
regular mail nor the certified mail was returned. Rather, the
United States Postal Service tracking indicates "Notice
Left (No Authorized Recipient Available) on August 26,
time within which respondent may have answered has expired.
As of the date of the certification of the record, no answer