Matter of Gilliam

524 A.2d 810, 106 N.J. 537, 1987 N.J. LEXIS 303
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMay 1, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 524 A.2d 810 (Matter of Gilliam) 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
Matter of Gilliam, 524 A.2d 810, 106 N.J. 537, 1987 N.J. LEXIS 303 (N.J. 1987).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter arises from a report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) that respondent be disbarred for knowing misappropriations of clients’ funds. Respondent has admitted the misappropriations but contended before the DRB that alcoholism, which contributed to cause the misconduct, should mitigate the sanction of disbarment otherwise required by In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979). Respondent recognizes that the record before us does not establish an impairment of comprehension, competency or will sufficient to *538 excuse the misconduct under the standards of In re Hein, 104 N.J. 297 (1986). For now, we shall continue to invoke the Wilson sanction. But as we said in Hein, supra, 104 N.J. at 305, “[w]e do not completely close the door” on the possibility that better understanding of this problem and better programs will commend another course for attorneys in respondent’s situation.

The decision is that respondent be disbarred.

Respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.

ORDER

It is ORDERED that LORENZO D. GILLIAM of MT. HOLLY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, be disbarred and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this State, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that LORENZO D. GILLIAM be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.

For disbarment—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN-7.

Opposed—None.

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

Related

Matter of Hahm
577 A.2d 503 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1990)
Matter of Willis
552 A.2d 979 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1989)
In re Devlin
536 A.2d 209 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1988)
Matter of Barbour
536 A.2d 214 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
524 A.2d 810, 106 N.J. 537, 1987 N.J. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gilliam-nj-1987.