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 Regojo

Supreme Court of New Jersey

July 23, 2019

In the Matter of Fernando J. Regojo An Attorney at Law

          District Docket Nos. XIV-2017-0610E; XIV-2018-0049E; and XIV-2018-0211E

          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 1.15(a), and the principles of In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979) and In re Hollendonner, 102 N.J. 21 (1985), (knowing misappropriation), RPC 1.15(d) (failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of K 1:21-6), RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).

         For the reasons set forth below, we recommend respondent's disbarment.

         Respondent was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1981. On November 14, 2001, respondent received a reprimand when he failed to promptly pay funds to third parties in a real estate transaction in one matter; negligently misappropriated client funds in ten matters; and failed to maintain proper records. The Court required respondent to submit quarterly trust account reconciliations to the OAE for two years. In re Regojo, 170 N.J. 67 (2001).

         On July 22, 2004, respondent received a second reprimand for gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate with a client, and negotiating a legal malpractice settlement with his client without advising the client to seek independent counsel. In re Regojo, 180 N.J. 523 (2004).

         On December 6, 2005, the Court imposed a third reprimand for respondent's negligent misappropriation, commingling personal and client funds, failure to promptly deliver funds to clients, and recordkeeping violations. The Court further required him to retain a certified public accountant and submit quarterly reconciliations of his attorney accounts to the OAE for two years. In re Regojo, 185 N.J. 395 (2005).

         On February 7, 2006, respondent received a censure for lack of diligence and gross neglect in a litigation matter. In re Regojo, 186 N.J. 66 (2006).

         On April 23, 2018, the Court temporarily suspended respondent for failing to cooperate with the OAE in the instant matters. In re Regojo, 233 N.J. 43 (2018). He remains suspended to date.

         Service of process was proper in this matter. On July 23, 2018, the OAE sent a copy of the complaint, by certified and regular mail, to respondent at his former law office and two home addresses.

         On July 27, 2018, the OAE sent a copy of the complaint to respondent at a new law office address and an updated home address by certified and regular mail.

         The certified mail to the new law firm address was returned marked "Undeliverable" and "Unable to forward." The regular mail was not returned. The certified mail sent to one home address was returned, but the regular mail was not. The certified mail sent to the other home address was returned "Refused - Individual No Longer Lives at This Residence." The regular mail was not returned.

         The certified mail to respondent's new office address was returned marked "Return to Sender Insufficient Address Unable to Forward." The regular mail was returned with similar markings. The certified mail sent to the new home address was returned after a ...


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.