District Docket No. VC-2017-0009E
W. Clark, Esq., Chair Hon. Maurice J. Gallipoli, Vice-Chair
Peter J. Boyer, Esq. Thomas J. Hoberman Regina Waynes Joseph,
Esq. Peter Petrou, Esq. Eileen Rivera Anne C. Singer, Esq.
Robert C. Zmirich
A. Brodsky CHIEF COUNSEL
R. Petersen, Jr. DEPUTY COUNSEL
J. Carbone, III Timothy M. Ellis
Elizabeth L. Laurenzano Colin T. Tams Kathryn Anne Winterle
A. Brodsky Chief Counsel
Disciplinary Review Board has reviewed the motion for
discipline by consent (censure or such lesser discipline as
the Board deems appropriate) filed by the District VC Ethics
Committee (DEC) in the above matter, pursuant to R.
l:20-10(b). Following a review of the record, the Board
granted the motion and determined to impose a censure for
respondent's violation of RPC 5.5(a)(1) (unauthorized
practice of law; practicing while ineligible), RPC 8.4(b)
(criminal conduct), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).
Magdy Mahmoud, the chief executive officer of Everest UCC
Wayne, LLC, and Garfield Urgent Care Center (GUCC), filed two
ethics grievances against respondent for his conduct during
his representation of Daniel J. Edwards, DO, in contentious
civil and criminal litigation between Mahmoud and Edwards,
which have since concluded.
November 22, 2016 and April 4, 2017, respondent was
ineligible to practice law for failure to comply with
Continuing Legal Education requirements. During the
ineligibility period, respondent continued to practice law,
including in litigation between Mahmoud and Edwards, an
admitted violation of RPC 5.5(a). The record contains no
evidence that respondent was aware of his ineligibility at
remaining charges involve respondent's role in an
apparent dispute between Mahmoud and Edwards. Mahmoud
maintained a locked, private office within the GUCC facility
for which he held the only key. On October 17, 2016, on
advice from respondent, Edwards hired a locksmith to change
the locks at GUCC's main entrance and Mahmoud's
private office. According to the stipulation, respondent knew
"or should have known" that his client was not
authorized to change the locks.
following day, respondent retained an individual identified
as John Doe to block Mahmoud's entry to GUCC, and to
intimidate him or threaten him with harm, while respondent
and Edwards entered and exited Mahmoud's private office
space, several times, without Mahmoud's permission to do
so. The stipulation characterized respondent's actions as
the stipulation alleged violations of RPC 8.4(b), (c), and
(d), based on the above conduct, the stipulation refers only
to trespass as the specific criminal conduct applicable.
However, respondent's conduct, in addition to trespass,
implicates potential charges of assault and harassment.
Thus, respondent clearly violated RPC 8.4(b). In addition,
respondent's involvement in the changing of the locks at
GUCC, knowing that Mahmoud ...