In the Matter of James D. Brady An Attorney at Law
Docket No. XIV-2017-0474E
A. Brodsky, Chief Counsel
W. CLARK, 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 knowing misappropriation of "funds entrusted to his
care," a violation of RPC 1.15(a) (failure to
safeguard funds), and the principles set forth in In re
Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979); RPC 1.15(b)
(failure to promptly deliver funds that the client is
entitled to receive); RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act that
reflects adversely on a lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness, or fitness to practice in other respects),
and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation). The complaint also charged
respondent with having violated RPC 1.5(c) (upon
conclusion of a contingent fee matter, failure to provide the
client with a written statement of the outcome of the matter
and, if there was a recovery, showing the remittance to the
client and the method of its determination) and RPC
8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities).
reasons set forth below, we recommend respondent's
disbarment for the knowing misappropriation of $8, 999.67 in
was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar in 1980 and to the New
Jersey bar in 1982. At the relevant times, he maintained an
office for the practice of law in Merchantville.
2003, respondent was admonished for misconduct in two client
matters, including lack of diligence, failure to surrender
his client's file to subsequent counsel, and
recordkeeping violations. In the Matter of James D.
Brady, DRB 03-176 (September 26, 2003).
2009, respondent received a censure, in a default matter, for
his violation of RPC 1.15(a) (commingling personal
and trust funds), RPC 1.15(d) (failure to comply
with the recordkeeping requirements set forth in R. 1:21-6),
and RPC 8.1(b). In re Brady, 198 N.J. 5 (2009).
October 26, 2018, in another default matter, the Court
imposed a three-month suspension on respondent for his
violation of RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with
the client), RPC 1.5(c), RPC 1.15(a)
(commingling), RPC 7.3(d) (giving something of value
to a person for recommending the lawyer's services), and
RPC 8.1(b). In re Brady, 235 N.J. 221
(2018). Respondent has not sought reinstatement.
of process was proper. On October 23, 2018, the OAE sent a
copy of the formal ethics complaint to respondent's
Merchantville address, by regular and certified mail, return
receipt requested. The certified mail was returned to the
OAE, marked "unclaimed." The regular mail was not
December 11, 2018, the OAE sent a letter to respondent, at
the same address, by regular and certified mail, return
receipt requested. The letter informed respondent that, if he
failed to file an answer within five days, the allegations of
the complaint would be deemed admitted, the record would be
certified directly to us for the imposition of discipline,
and the complaint would be deemed amended to include a charge
of a violation of RPC 8.1(b). The certified letter
was returned to the OAE, marked "return to sender
insufficient address unable to forward." The letter sent
by regular mail was not returned.
January 28, 2019, respondent had not filed an answer to the
complaint, and the time within which he was required to do so
had expired. Accordingly, ...