In re Garofalo

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Garofalo

160 A.3d 1291, 229 N.J. 245, 2017 WL 2445336, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 586

DecidedJune 6, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.3d 1291 (In re Garofalo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Garofalo, 160 A.3d 1291, 229 N.J. 245, 2017 WL 2445336, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 586 (N.J. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-037, concluding that MICHAEL S. GAROFALO, formerly of SPARTA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, should be censured for violating RPC 8.1(a)(know-[246]*246ingly making a false statement of material act in a disciplinary matter), RPC 8.4(b)(committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in all other respects, specifically, harassment, a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a)), RPC 8.4(c)(conduet involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(g)(engaging in, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination);

And the Court having ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And the Court having preliminarily determined from its review of the matter that a six-month term of suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct;

And respondent through counsel, having waived his right to a hearing before the Court and having consented to a six-month term of suspension from the practice of law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL S. GAROFALO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

Ordered that the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter is hereby discharged; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20—20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(d); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further

[247]*247ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-037, concluding that MICHAEL S. GAROFALO, formerly of SPARTA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, should be censured for violating RPC 8.1(a)(know-[246]*246ingly making a false statement of material act in a disciplinary matter), RPC 8.4(b)(committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in all other respects, specifically, harassment, a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a)), RPC 8.4(c)(conduet involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(g)(engaging in, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination);

And the Court having ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And the Court having preliminarily determined from its review of the matter that a six-month term of suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct;

And respondent through counsel, having waived his right to a hearing before the Court and having consented to a six-month term of suspension from the practice of law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL S. GAROFALO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective immediately, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

Ordered that the Order to Show Cause issued in this matter is hereby discharged; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20—20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(d); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further

[247]*247ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.3d 1291, 229 N.J. 245, 2017 WL 2445336, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-garofalo-nj-2017.