IN THE MATTER OF LOGAN M. TERRY AN ATTORNEY AT LAW
Argued: February 15, 2018
Docket No. XIV-2016-0368E
Glyn appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics.
Respondent appeared pro se.
C. FROST, CHAIRMAN
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
matter was before us pursuant to R. 1:20-6(c) (1), which
provides that a "hearing shall be held only if the
pleadings raise genuine disputes of material fact, if the
respondent's answer requests an opportunity to be heard
in mitigation, or if the presenter requests to be heard in
aggravation." Respondent's answer admitted the
allegations of the ethics complaint, which charged him with
engaging in a conflict of interest (RFC 1.7(a)(2))
and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (RPC
8.4(d)). We determine to impose a censure.
was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 2003. He has no history
November 8, 2017 answer to the formal ethics complaint,
respondent admitted all of the essential facts of the
complaint, as follows. In June 2016, respondent represented
AM in criminal charges, including sexual assault upon four
minors under the age of thirteen, pending against him in
Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County.
days immediately prior to a jury trial scheduled for June 7,
2016, respondent communicated with his client in an attempt
to collect outstanding fees, informing AM that respondent
could not "provide an adequate defense" unless AM
paid respondent's legal fees.
in a text message, respondent warned AM that he would not
prepare for the trial during the weekend immediately
preceding it, unless he was first paid. He then wrote,
"HAVE FUN IN PRISON." The maximum sentence that AM
could have received exceeded 200 years.
inception of the trial, AM informed the judge that he no
longer trusted respondent as his attorney and that he wanted
to terminate their attorney/client relationship. He showed
the judge screenshots of various communications from
respondent and a transcript of the offending text message.
The judge then granted the application for new counsel, and
dismissed the jury in order to reschedule the trial for a
future date, once subsequent counsel was in place.
July 9, 2016 letter to the OAE, respondent admitted that his
actions had been unethical, and asserted that, during the
fourteen-month representation, AM had been uncooperative in
preparing a defense to the charges and had refused a plea
offer that respondent considered favorable.
respondent entered into an Agreement in Lieu of Discipline
(ALD) with the OAE. In it, respondent admitted that he ...