In The Matter Of Christopher D. Boyman An Attorney At Law
Decided: January 11, 2019
District Docket No. XIV-2017-0654E
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.
l:20-4(f). A two-count complaint charged respondent with
violations of RPC 3.3(a)(1) (false statement of
material fact to a tribunal), RPC 5.5(a), R.
l:20-20(b)(1) and IL l:20-20(b)(ll) (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
determine to recommend respondent's disbarment.
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 Bovman, 201 N.J.
2012, respondent was temporarily suspended, effective
February 6, 2012, for failure to pay the assessed
disciplinary costs in connection with his censure matter.
In re Bovman, 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 Bovman,
217 N.J. 360 (2014).
third default, on December 6, 2018, the Court suspended
respondent for three years, effective January 4, 2019, based
on his continued practice of law while suspended for more
than four years, from May 9, 2012 to August 24, 2016, in at
least nineteen client matters involving loan transactions
that exceeded $23 million. In re Boyman, N.J. (2018) In
the Matter of Christopher D. Boyman, DRB 18-085
(August 22, 2018).
of process was proper in this matter. On June 8, 2018, the
OAE sent a copy of the complaint by certified and regular
mail to respondent's home address as listed in the
attorney registration records. The certified mail receipt was
returned, having been signed by "C. Boyman" on July
6, 2018. The regular mail was not returned.
9, 2018, 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 IL
l:20-4(f) and R. l: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). United States Postal
Service tracking records indicate successful delivery of the
certified mail on July 12, 2018. The regular mail was not
time within which respondent may answer the complaint has
expired and, as of February 26, 2018, he had not filed an
answer. Thus, the ...