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 Gormally

Citations: 212 N.J. 486; 57 A.3d 1098; 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1264

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey; December 19, 2012; New Jersey; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this disciplinary proceeding, three attorneys admitted to the Bar in various years faced disciplinary actions for violations of RPC 5.6(b), which prohibits agreements that restrict a lawyer’s right to practice as part of settlement agreements. Two attorneys received reprimands due to their direct involvement in such agreements, while the third attorney, whose role was deemed subordinate, was diverted from formal disciplinary action and entered into an agreement in lieu of discipline. The Court's decision also required all involved attorneys to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for the costs incurred during the investigation and prosecution of their cases. The order was concurred by Chief Justice Rabner and Justices Hoens, Cuff, and Parrillo, ensuring that the disciplinary records be permanently filed in each respondent's attorney file.

Legal Issues Addressed

Minor Violations and Diversion in Disciplinary Proceedings

Application: Smith, whose violation of RPC 5.6(b) was considered minor due to his subordinate role, was diverted from disciplinary action and given an agreement in lieu of discipline.

Reasoning: Sean A. Smith, admitted in 2001, also violated RPC 5.6(b); however, due to his subordinate role, his conduct was deemed minor, warranting diversion from the disciplinary process for an agreement in lieu of discipline.

Reimbursement of Disciplinary Costs

Application: All respondents were ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for costs related to their respective investigations and prosecutions.

Reasoning: The Court also ordered that the records be permanently filed in each respondent’s attorney file, and all respondents are required to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for the costs related to the investigation and prosecution of their matters.

Restrictions on Practice of Law under RPC 5.6(b)

Application: Gormally and Cardillo were reprimanded for entering into agreements that restricted their right to practice law as part of settlement agreements, violating RPC 5.6(b).

Reasoning: Gormally, admitted to the Bar in 1979, and Cardillo, admitted in 1997, both received reprimands for violating RPC 5.6(b), which prohibits agreements that restrict a lawyer’s right to practice as part of a settlement.