IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER D. BOYMAN AN ATTORNEY AT LAW
District Docket No. XIV-2016-0600E
A. Brodsky Chief Counsel.
C. Frost, Chair.
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
matter was before us on a certification of the record filed
by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), pursuant to R.
1:20-4(f). A two-count complaint charged respondent with
violations of RPC 5.5(a) and R. 1:20-20(b) (1) (11)
(practicing law while suspended), RPC 8.1(b)
(failure to cooperate with an ethics investigation), and
RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation).
determine to impose a three-year suspension.
was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1987. In 2010, he was
censured, on a certified record, for misconduct in two
matters. In one matter, he was found guilty of gross neglect,
lack of diligence, and failure to communicate with his
client. In the other matter, he was found guilty of gross
neglect and lack of diligence in connection with two
collection matters. He also entered into an improper business
transaction with the client and failed to return the
client's file. He failed to cooperate with disciplinary
authorities in both matters. In re Boyman, 201 N.J.
2012, respondent was temporarily suspended, effective
February 6, 2012, for failure to pay the assessed
administrative costs in connection with his censure matter.
In re Boyman, 209 N.J. 2 (2012). He remains
suspended to date.
16, 2014, respondent received a second censure, also in a
default, for his failure to file the R. 1:20-20 affidavit
required of all suspended attorneys. In re Boyman,
217 N.J. 360 (2014).
of process was proper in this matter. On November 20, 2017,
the OAE sent a copy of the complaint by certified and regular
mail to respondent at his home address listed in the attorney
registration records. According to the United States Postal
Service tracking information, the certified mail was
delivered on November 27, 2017. The regular mail was not
December 18, 2017, the OAE sent a second letter to
respondent, to the same home address, also by regular and
certified mail, informing him that, if he did not answer the
complaint within five days of the date of the letter, the
allegations of the complaint would be deemed admitted; that,
pursuant to R. 1:20-4(f) and R. 1:20-6 (c) (1), the
record in the matter would be certified directly to us for
imposition of sanction; and that the complaint would be
amended to include a charge of a violation of RPC
January 16, 2018, the certified mail was returned marked
"Unclaimed." The regular mail was not returned.
time within which respondent may answer the complaint has
expired. As of February 26, 2018, respondent had not filed an
answer. Thus, the matter was certified to us as a default.
turn to the facts alleged in the complaint.
previously noted, the Court issued an Order temporarily
suspending respondent from the practice of law. Respondent