You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Cermack

Citations: 174 N.J. 560; 810 A.2d 1074

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey; December 11, 2002; New Jersey; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case concerns the disciplinary proceedings against an attorney admitted to the bar in 1980, who was sanctioned following a motion for discipline by consent. The attorney, along with the Disciplinary Review Board, acknowledged multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including a lack of diligence (RPC 1.3), failure to adequately communicate with clients (RPC 1.4), non-compliance with recordkeeping requirements (RPC 1.15), and failure to protect client interests upon termination of representation (RPC 1.16). Additional violations included assisting in the unauthorized practice of law (RPC 5.5) and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice (RPC 8.4). The stipulated disciplinary action included a six-month suspension from practicing law, effective January 6, 2003. Furthermore, the proceedings' records will be permanently maintained in the attorney's file, and the attorney is required to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs. The case underscores the importance of adhering to professional conduct standards to maintain integrity within the legal profession.

Legal Issues Addressed

Assistance of Unauthorized Practice of Law under RPC 5.5(b)

Application: The attorney was involved in assisting unauthorized practice of law, which was part of the violations leading to disciplinary action.

Reasoning: Thomas F. Cermack, Jr., an attorney admitted to the bar in 1980, has been sanctioned following a motion for discipline by consent... acknowledging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), specifically... RPC 5.5(b) (assisting unauthorized practice of law)...

Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice under RPC 8.4(d)

Application: The attorney engaged in conduct considered prejudicial to the administration of justice, justifying the disciplinary measures taken.

Reasoning: Thomas F. Cermack, Jr., an attorney admitted to the bar in 1980, has been sanctioned following a motion for discipline by consent... acknowledging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), specifically... RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to justice)...

Failure to Communicate with Client under RPC 1.4

Application: The attorney failed to adequately inform and explain matters to the client, preventing informed decision-making, as part of the violations acknowledged.

Reasoning: Thomas F. Cermack, Jr., an attorney admitted to the bar in 1980, has been sanctioned following a motion for discipline by consent... acknowledging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), specifically... RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep the client informed), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to explain matters to enable informed client decisions)...

Lack of Diligence under RPC 1.3

Application: The attorney was found to lack the requisite diligence in handling client matters, contributing to the disciplinary action taken.

Reasoning: Thomas F. Cermack, Jr., an attorney admitted to the bar in 1980, has been sanctioned following a motion for discipline by consent... acknowledging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), specifically: RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence)...

Non-compliance with Recordkeeping under RPC 1.15(d)

Application: The attorney failed to comply with essential recordkeeping requirements, forming part of the basis for disciplinary measures.

Reasoning: Thomas F. Cermack, Jr., an attorney admitted to the bar in 1980, has been sanctioned following a motion for discipline by consent... acknowledging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), specifically... RPC 1.15(d) (failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements)...

Protection of Client Interests under RPC 1.16(d)

Application: The attorney did not take necessary steps to protect client interests upon termination of representation, contributing to the sanctions imposed.

Reasoning: Thomas F. Cermack, Jr., an attorney admitted to the bar in 1980, has been sanctioned following a motion for discipline by consent... acknowledging violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), specifically... RPC 1.16(d) (failure to protect clients’ interests upon termination of representation)...