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 Maziarz

Supreme Court of New Jersey

January 9, 2019

In The Matter Of John E. Maziarz An Attorney At Law

          Argued: October 18, 2018

          Steven Zweig appeared on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics. Respondent appeared pro se.

          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 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.

         Respondent was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1972 and to the New Jersey bar in 1977. He has no history of final discipline.

         On July 12, 2018, respondent and the OAE entered into a disciplinary stipulation. The facts, as taken from the stipulation, are as follows.

         On 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.[1] On March 30, 2016, respondent informed the OAE that he had corrected the identified deficiencies.

         Thereafter, 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.

         On 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 4, 2017.

         Because 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.

         Following the demand audit, the OAE identified the following recordkeeping violations:

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 ...

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.