In The Matter Of John E. Maziarz An Attorney At Law
Argued: October 18, 2018
Zweig appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics.
Respondent appeared pro se.
A. Brodsky Chief Counsel
C. FROST, CHAIR.
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey.
matter was before us by way of a disciplinary stipulation
between the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) and respondent.
Respondent admitted violating RPC 1.15(a)
(commingling and negligent misappropriation); RPC
1.15(d) and R. 1:21-6 (recordkeeping); RPC 8.1(b)
(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities); and
RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation). For the reasons stated below,
we determined to impose a reprimand.
was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1972 and to the New
Jersey bar in 1977. He has no history of final discipline.
12, 2018, respondent and the OAE entered into a disciplinary
stipulation. The facts, as taken from the stipulation, are as
February 16, 2016, the OAE conducted a random audit of
respondent's books and records, which revealed numerous
recordkeeping deficiencies. On February 24, 2016, the OAE
sent a letter to respondent notifying him of the deficiencies
and requiring him to confirm, within forty-five days, his
correction of those deficiencies. On March 30, 2016,
respondent informed the OAE that he had corrected the
on October 17, 2016, PNC Bank notified the OAE of an
overdraft in respondent's attorney trust account (ATA).
The overdraft occurred on October 13, 2016, after ATA check
number 1008 for $28, 000, payable to McDowell Posternock
Apell & Detrick, was presented for payment against
respondent's ATA, overdrawing it by $2, 185.04. Although
the OAE requested a written explanation for the overdraft,
respondent did not reply.
November 17, 2016, the OAE again directed respondent to
provide a written explanation for the overdraft. Respondent
replied to the OAE four days later, but failed to include an
explanation for the overdraft. Therefore, by letter dated
December 13, 2016, the OAE scheduled a demand audit for
January 4, 2017, and requested respondent to produce all R.
1:21-6 records for the period from February 1, 2016 to June
respondent did not provide all of the documents requested
during the January 4, 2017 audit, the OAE sent him a letter,
dated July 13, 2017, scheduling a continuation of the audit
for July 24, 2017. The audit period for the second meeting
was expanded to January 1, 2016 to July 24, 2017. Respondent
again failed to produce all of the requested records,
including three-way reconciliations for January 1, 2016 to
July 24, 2017.
the demand audit, the OAE identified the following
a. No cash receipts or cash disbursements journals, in
violation of R. 1:21-6(c)(1)(A);
b. Client ledger cards missing and some not fully
descriptive, in violation of ...