 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Matter of Gottesman8/20/1992
s such infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear conviction that the Commission could not, consistent with its duty, accept as final the other jurisdiction's Conclusion on that subject; or
3. The imposition of the same discipline would result in grave inJustice; or
4. The misconduct established warrants substantially different discipline in this state.
The Commission reviewed the record on appeal from the Supreme Court of New Jersey, District IX Ethics Committee, along with the decision and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board and Respondent's statement to the Commission.
Respondent had an opportunity to be heard and in fact participated in a hearing in New Jersey. It does not appear that there was an absence of proof of Respondent's misconduct. Since Respondent's conduct would constitute a violation of Arizona Supreme Court Rule 42, ER 5.4(a) and ER 5.5, imposition of a public censure would not result in a grave inJustice or warrant substantially different discipline.
Respondent argued that he did not have a partnership arrangement, that he was not sharing fees, and that he was not assisting Mr. Infante in the unauthorized practice of law.
Respondent's requests for mitigation were similarly heard by the New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board and were considered in their decision.
The Commission cannot clearly find that any of the elements required under Rule 58(c) to modify the discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey exist, and, therefore, recommends the identical discipline, censure.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 27th day of May, 1992.
Larry W. Suciu, Chair Disciplinary Commission
Page 1 2 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|