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 Wright

Supreme Court of New Jersey

June 19, 2019

In the Matter of Katrina F. Wright An Attorney At Law

         District Docket No. XIV-2017-0673E

          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). The formal ethics complaint charged respondent with violations of RPC 8.1(b) (failure to reply to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority) and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), based on her failure to file the required R. 1:20-20 affidavit, following her suspension from the practice of law.

         For the reasons set forth below, we determine to impose a two-year suspension.

         Respondent was admitted to the New Jersey and Pennsylvania bars in 1988. On May 5, 2008, she received a reprimand in a default matter for gross neglect in a divorce proceeding, based on her failure to file an answer on behalf of her client, and for failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. In re Wright, 194 N.J. 503 (2008).

         On July 16, 2015, respondent received a censure, also in a default matter, for failure to expedite litigation, failure to return a client's file upon termination of the representation, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities in one client matter, and lack of diligence, failure to communicate with the client, failure to refund all or part of an unearned retainer upon termination of the representation, and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities in a second client matter. In re Wright, 222 N.J. 27 (2015).

         On September 8, 2017, respondent was suspended from the practice of law for six months, in a third default matter, for knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. In re Wright, 230 N.J. 345 (2017).

         Most recently, on May 3, 2019, respondent received a one-year suspension based on her three-year suspension in Pennsylvania for violations of the Pennsylvania equivalent of New Jersey RPC 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly make a false statement to a tribunal); RPC 5.5(a) (practicing while ineligible); RPC 7.1(a) (a lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication about the lawyer or the lawyer's services); RPC 7.5(a) (a lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates RPC 7.1); RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice). In re Wright, __N.J.__ (2019).

         Service of process was proper in this matter. On August 23, 2018, in accordance with R. 1:20-7(h), the OAE sent a copy of the complaint, by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, to respondent's last known address listed in the records of the New Jersey Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection, in Willingboro, New Jersey. The certified mail receipt was returned marked "Unclaimed," and the regular mail was not returned.

         On October 3, 2018, the OAE sent a letter to respondent in accordance with R. l:20-4(f), to the same Willingboro, New Jersey address, by certified mail, return receipt requested, and by regular mail. The letter informed respondent that, if she failed to file a verified answer to the complaint within five days of the date of the letter, the allegations of the complaint would be deemed admitted, the entire record would be certified directly to us for the imposition of discipline, and the complaint would be deemed amended to include a violation of RPC 8.1(b). The certified mail receipt was returned marked "Unclaimed," and the regular mail was not returned.

         As of November 19, 2018, respondent had not filed an answer to the complaint, and the time within which she was required to do so had expired. Accordingly, ...


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.