Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Boyman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

August 22, 2018

IN THE MATTER OF CHRISTOPHER D. BOYMAN AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

          District Docket No. XIV-2016-0600E

          Ellen A. Brodsky Chief Counsel.

          DECISION

          Bonnie C. Frost, Chair.

         To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

         This 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).

         We determine to impose a three-year suspension.

         Respondent 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. 203 (2010).

         In 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.

         On May 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).

         Service 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 returned.

         On 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 8.1(b).

         On January 16, 2018, the certified mail was returned marked "Unclaimed." The regular mail was not returned.

         The 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.

         We now turn to the facts alleged in the complaint.

         As previously noted, the Court issued an Order temporarily suspending respondent from the practice of law. Respondent ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.