In the Matter of Fernando J. Regojo An Attorney at Law
District Docket Nos. XIV-2017-0610E; XIV-2018-0049E; and
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. 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).
reasons set forth below, we recommend respondent's
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).
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).
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
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).
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.
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
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.
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
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 ...