jared e. stolz disciplinary opinion
TRANSCRIPT
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 1/41
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERS
Disciplinary Review Board
Docket No. DRB 13-331
District Docket No. XIII-
0022E
IN THE MATTER OF
JARED E. STOLZ
AN ATTORNEY AT LAW
Decision
Argued: January 16, 2014
Decided: March 18, 2014
Timothy B. McKeown appeared on behalf of the Dis
Ethics Committee.
Respondent waived appearance for oral argu ment.
To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate J
the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 2/41
recommendation for discipline greater than an admonitio
1:20-15(f)(4). The DEC’s recommendation for an admo
based on respondent’s violation of two counts o
(failing to treat with courtesy and consideration a
involved in the legal process), RPC 8.4(a) (violating
RP~C 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
misrepresentation), and RP~C 8.4(d) (conduct prejudi
administration of justice), which respondent stipula
hearing before the DEC. However, the DEC found n
convincing evidence to support the charges in the thi
the complaint: RPC 3.2 (presumably, by failin
reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation), RP__~
(knowingly making a false statement of material fact
tribunal), RP__~C 3.3(a)(5) (failing to disclose to the
material fact knowing that the omission is reasonably
mislead the tribunal), and RP__~C 4.1(a) (in representin
knowingly making a false statement of material fact
third person). Therefore, the DEC dismissed those cha
For the reasons set forth below, we determine t
three-month suspension on respondent for both the
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 3/41
charges, which, with the exception of RP__C 3.2, shou
been dismissed.
Respondent was admitted to the New Jersey bar i
the relevant times, he maintained an off ice for the
law in Bridgewater. He has no disciplinary history.
The ethics charges against respondent arose
representation of the defendant in a Superior Cou
captioned Stephen H. Joseph v. Bay State Insuranc
which was instituted as the result of Bay State’s h
the plaintiff’s claim for damages caused by a fi
residence. The plaintiff was represented by the
Robert Feltoon, who was assisted by his associate
Crawford. Respondent represented Bay State.
The DEC presided over a two-day hearing, durin
received testimony from respondent, his adm
assistant, Lilly Shebey,
I
Feltoon, Crawford, and re
character witness, attorney Jay Lavroff.
The t
established that there was a great deal of animosi
I Throughout the testimony, Shebey was referred
Bekir, her surname at the time the events giving ri
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 4/41
Feltoon and respondent, which was manifested thro
course of the litigation.
Before the first witness testified at the DE
respondent stipulated the allegations in counts one
the complaint. According to count one, at respondent
he and Feltoon served motions and discovery on each
communicated with each other electronically (via em
fax, and electronic media ). Respondent stated to F
he preferred this practice, because it reduced th
paper.
According to the ethics complaint, in response t
legitimate inquiries, comments, or questions to
during the course of the litigation, responden
following emails and fax to Feltoon on the following d
Don’t feel you have to email me daily an
let me know just how smart you are.
(November 3, 2009 email).
This will acknowledge receipt of you
numerous Emails, faxes and letters ...
In response thereto, Bla Bla Bla Bla Bl
Bla. (November ii, 2009 fax.)
Did you get beat up in school a lot?,
because you whine like a little girl.
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 5/41
I’d send you the delivery receipt, but I
put both your email addresses in my ’Junk
Mail’ box, because that is all I get from
you, JUNK. (Aug. 16, 2010 email)
What’s that girlie email you have.
Hotbox.com or something?
Sept 28,
2010
email).
[C¶I0.]
2
According to the second count of the complaint, on D
16, 2010, Feltoon and respondent appeared before the Ho
Michael J. Kassel, J.S.C., to argue various motions. Aft
motions were heard, counsel discussed the wording of the
in Judge Kassel’s chambers. On the way out of the j
chambers, respondent told Feltoon never to threaten him w
ethics complaint again. At the same time, physical c
between respondent and Feltoon occurred, causing Feltoon
to respondent, Don’t touch me, or words to that e
Respondent replied, Why would I want to touch a fag like
Both counts described respondent’s conduct as discou
and disrespectful and alleged that, by such conduct, resp
had violated RP__~C 3.2 and RPC 8.4 (a), (c), and (d).
2 C refers to the formal ethics complaint, dat
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 6/41
With respect to these charges, respondent s
following, at the DEC hearing:
I sent these five E-mails, I sent E-
mails to Mr. Feltoon as set forth in th
complaint that said don’t feel you have t
E-mail me daily, and let me know just ho
smart you are in November. I sent an E
mail, this will acknowledge receipt of you
numerous E-mails, faxes and letters. I
response thereto, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This is November 2009. I sent it. I sen
it to him. I intentionally sent it. It wa
venomous. I sent the E-mail four month
later, Did you get beat up in school a lo
because you whine like a little girl.
My apologies to the panel for readin
these, and to everybody in the room, and t
the court reporter. Seven months later
Why don’t you grow a pair. The fifth one
I’d send you a delivery receipt -- thi
was both to Mr. Crawford and to Mr. Feltoon
I’d send you a delivery receipt, but I pu
both your E-mail addresses in my junk mai
because that’s all I get from you, junk.
And then, finally, in September, What’s th
girlie E-mail you have, hotbox or something
with regards to problems sending E-mails.
This is inexcusable. I don’t have a
answer. It doesn’t matter. What happene
before, why I sent it. It wa
unprofessional, it was undignified, I was
wrong, it was not courteous, it was not --
and, I’m
sorry, I can’t
remember the
wording.
I want to track because this,
essentially, is an admission with regards t
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 7/41
Coming out of court several months --
year later, I called, and, again,
apologize, I don’t want to use the languag
over and over again. I called him a fag
It was the first thing that came to my mind
I have never said anything like that before
so forget about attorneys, but to people
It was not intended as a specific remark t
Mr. Feltoon. It was wrong. It wa
horrible. All I can do is say that I’
sorry, I should have said I’m sorry earlie
to Mr. Feltoon. But, as you’re going t
see, the end of this litigation did not en
well for me. They had me removed -- Mr
Feltoon had me removed and made a witness,
and that was the last of my involvement i
the case.
[IT13-14 to IT15-8.]
3
The third count of the compla int, which was the
the disciplinary hearing, alleged that, on October
Feltoon filed a motion seeking, in part, an order
that the rent Plaintiff was then paying for temporar
and the cost of renting furniture for that tempo
constituted reasonable additional living expenses as
law under the homeowners policy at issue. The
accompanied by transmittal letter s to the clerk’s of
3 IT refers to to the transcript of the Augu
ethics hearing.
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 8/41
Judge Kassel, a proposed form of order, a b
certifications of the plaintiff and Feltoon. On that
Crawford served the papers via five separate em
attachments.
Crawford testified that, prior to sending each
left a voice mail message for Shebey, informing he
motion would be served via email. Each of the emai
Shebey requested that she confirm receipt of both th
the attachments. After Crawford sent each email,
letter to Shebey confirming that he had sent the
requesting that she immediately advise either him or
she had not received them. On October 19, 20
confirmed receipt of all five E mails sent by Crawfor
Crawford also emailed the same five emails and d
respondent. Respondent never stated to Crawford that
receive them. Respondent did not object to serv
papers via email and Crawford did not receive any n
notices.
Seven weeks later, respondent submitted an op
the plaintiff’s motion, as well as a cross-motion o
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 9/41
hearing, Crawford conceded that, after respondent
his opposition papers, that he had not rec
certifications, Crawford did not provide him with co
Crawford did not believe respondent’s claim, part
light of the multiple references to the certificati
brief accompanying the plaintiff’s motion, and r
failure to ask for them. Rather, Crawford submi
court a reply certification, to which he had attache
the initial emails and faxes and the follow-up
respondent.
On December 16, 2010, the motion and cross-m
argued before Ju dge Kassel. The plaintiff’s motion
based on respondent’s claim that he had not re
supporting certifications providing the factual ba
relief sought from the court and, therefore, was
address the contents of the certifications in his
The following exchange took place before J udge Kassel
MR. STOLZ: Your Hono r, is the -- is th
inventory that Mr. Feltoon claims that h
sent us part of the moving papers? Becaus
I didn’t have the certifications.
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 10/41
chance to say, no, it’s no good, or it’s to
much. Give Bay State a chance to look a
it.
THE COURT: Yeah, but did you have -- di
you have Mr. -- the brief prepared by Mr
Feltoon on behalf of Mr. Joseph that sough
summary judgment on the issue of th
furniture expenses that are now bein
referenced to?
MR. STOLZ: I have a brief. It’s a 2
page brief, but it doesn’t have a
attachment for this additional furniture.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. STOLZ: And in this -- let me jus
see -- the certification that came -- tha
we had asked that be sent by regular mail
because some of their submissions wer
either put in the junk, or spam, or couldn’
be opened, I don’t see that
in this
submission. So, Judge, if you --
THE COURT: All right. Well --
MR. STOLZ: -- g ive us ten days.
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Mr.
Feltoon, was the -- these new furnitur
bills sent to Mr. Stolz by e-mail?
MR. FELTOON: They were originally sen
to him by e-mail, and I asked him t
respond, and he refused. He said that the
-- they were not going to respond. I have
response to that.
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 11/41
pursuant to an agreement I had in writin
with his office, that we would agree t
exchange things by e-mail?
MR.
ago.
STOLZ: Which we withdrew a year
MR. FELTOON: And, so, I sent the entir
package to him. Your Honor has all of the
e-mails, including his office’s confirmatio
that he has them all.
As Your Honor pointed out, my brief
goes on for pages talking about Mr. Joseph’
certification. Mr. Stolz admits he had tha
brief on October 15th, and now he has the
audacity for two months later to stand here
and tell Your Honor he still doesn’t have
it.
He’s never asked me for it. I’ve never
mailed it to him. It’s just outrageous tha
he would have my brief, which mentions
Feltoon’s certification, Joseph’
certification, and then refused to respon
by saying I don’t have it, when he’s neve
asked.
THE CO URT: Well, let me ask Mr. Stolz.
Mr. Stolz did you put in your oppositio
brief that you were concerned that yo
didn’t have the certification -- you didn’
have some certifications that detailed th
furniture in question?
MR. STOLZ: I don’t know what the
certification -- how am I sup posed to say -
I’m sorry, Judge. How am I supposed to sa
I don’t have a certification that says this
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 12/41
certification, and says that this -- thes
$2,400 a month in furniture is at issue
then at least you’re on notice that you -
that you don’t have the certification tha
contains that information.
MR. STOLZ: Yeah. I think it’s the -- th
first counter statement. We do not [sic
either certifications [sic].
THE COURT: Hold on. Where -- well,
since the two of you have disagreed on s
many things that I’m not intimately familia
with in terms of the back, and forth, wher
-- where is that?
MR. STOLZ: The first page of the brief.
THE COURT: Right. Yeah.
MR. STOLZ: Plaintiff does not se
forth --
THE COURT: What -- what paragraph? Wha
MR. STOLZ: First paragraph.
THE COURT: plaintiff does not se
forth a statement of facts. I see that
Right. Where is there something that say
you don’t have the -- the --
MR. STOLZ: Three.
THE COURT: -- relevant informatio
concerning the furniture rental?
MR. STOLZ: No, Ju dge, I -- I didn’t sa
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 13/41
THE COURT: Well, where
that?
-- where is
MR. FELTOON: It’s the top of Page 3
Your Honor.
MR. STOLZ: No certification
response.
THE COURT: Top of Page 3? All right.
MR. FELTOON: Point Number 4 --
in
THE COURT: As in Count 7, additiona
living expenses. No certification provid
with regards to the motion.
MR. STOLZ: Well, here, I actually di
say it.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Feltoon, i
was -- I’m not going to disentangle why i
was the case, but it was -- it was briefed.
I’m going to order right now -- I’
going to sign the order as to what Bay Stat
previously paid on, and you can re-file a
to the new amount, and it’s incumbent upo
Mr. Stolz to respond accordingly.
I would request that both of you sen
everything formally, certified mail, et
cetera, et cetera.
[Ex.P5,p.132,1.14 to Ex.P5,p.137,1.5.]
4
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 14/41
According to the ethics complaint, r
representations to the court that he had not be
with the plaintiff’s certification were knowingly
to this issue, Shebey testifi ed that, after she had
attachment to Feltoon’s emails, she had saved it
drive on the office computer system and, it seems,
original in respondent’s incoming mail bin and an
directly into the file. Although Shebey could not
specifics of this particular motion, she testifie
general office practice, when handling motions.
practice to make sure that the office had actuall
attachments to emails. If something was missing, she
the attorney who had sent it to respondent.
According to Shebey, respondent never asked h
certifications and never told her that they were corr
At the DEC hearing, respondent stipulated t
received the five emails from Crawford:
I have not maintained from the openin
throughout this case that I -- that m
office did not get these five E-mails, tha
they didn’t get the attachments, that th
attachments were not put in the pleadings
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 15/41
was going on for those two months. Not
didn’t get them. I didn’t say to the cour
they were corrupted, I didn’t get them.
said I don’t have the certifications, giv
me ten days to look at them.
That’s what
the transcript says.
[IT141-17 to IT142-3.]
Although respondent admitted, at the ethics hea
he had received the certifications, he testified that
seen them at the time that he had sat down to p
opposition to the motion and the cross-motion. He
that he had not lied to the court.
Respondent testified that, between the time that
was delivered and the date of oral argument, he was o
the office. As stated previously, the motion was
October 15, 2010. The opposition and cross-motion w
on November 30, 2010. Respondent testified that
Ireland on a golf trip with his father, from October
2010, and in Punta Cana with his family, from Novembe
2010. He surmised that he had not worked on the opp
cross-motion until November 29, 2010. In addition, h
that the plaintiff’s motion was just one of ten-
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 16/41
Respondent explained that he had not requeste
the certifications from Crawford or Feltoon because
believe that the documents were important. Instea
assumed it [sic] was [sic] saying the same thing ov
again.
Respondent testified that, from December 1 to
was in Palm Beach.
s
At that point, he had a trial un
15, 2010. Therefore, he was not able to look at the
reply brief, which included the certifications, unti
before oral argument before Judge Kassel. Moreover,
his main concern was the summary judgment mot
plaintiff’s bad faith claim against Bay State, not t
payment for additional expenses.
Respondent continued:
I neglected my files, I played too muc
golf, I went to Punta Cana with my famil
all within two months. Was it wrong?
don’t know. This is the lifestyle that I’v
chosen, the practice I’ve chosen because
worked at Methfessel & Werbel for 15 year
in a cubical [sic] rising to managin
director. I didn’t want that anymore.
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 17/41
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 18/41
Attorney Jay Lavroff, a personal friend an
colleague of respondent, testified as his charact
Lavroff attested to respondent’s reputation as a s
honest, straightforward, meticulous practitioner,
zealous advocate, someone who plays it straight.
Lavroff served as chair of the District XII Ethics C
recommended respondent to serve on that committee.
Based on respondent’s admission to the alle
counts one and two of the ethics complaint, the DEC
he had violated RPC 3.2 and RPC 8.4(a), (c),6 and (d).
With respect to count three of the complaint, t
as follows:
After a review of the testimony, which wa
exhaustive with no less than 4 witnesse
testifying, it cannot be said that Mr. Stol
intentionally misrepresented a fact to th
tribunal given his plausible explanatio
regarding the alleged statement, take
together within the context in which it wa
made and given the circumstances, and a
6 The complaint does not identify which sta
respondent were
dishonest, fraudulent, dece
misrepresentations. Presumably, the complaint in
encompass all of
the pejorative and discriminator
within this charge.
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 19/41
defined within the meaning of RPC 3.2, 3.
(a)(5) and 4.1(a).
23. While we acknowledge that Mr.
Stolz is a sole practitioner, has a ver
busy schedule including various, multipl
out of state trips, we do not find that thi
representation on a matter of additiona
living expenses would warrant an intentiona
misrepresentation. It defies logic, an
appears that Mr. Stolz was perhaps sloppy,
or less than diligent in retrieving o
reviewing the email which his offic
undoubtedly received from grievant
However, what is most troubling is that th
grievant and respondent clearly were no
working to advance a cause in litigation,
but to show the other person up throug
certain statements. In fact, Mr. Stol
twice represented to the Court that he di
not have the Certification, once in writin
and once at oral argument. There was a tim
lapse in between those two circumstances
However, rather that resend th
Certification, Grievant sent him
confirmation sheet that it was sent. Again,
it did not appear by a clear and convincin
standard that an intentiona
misrepresentation occurred based upon th
facts and testimony. Possibly neglect o
lack of diligence,
but not
intentional
misrepresentation.
[HPR§IV¶22-¶23.]
7
7 HPR refers to the hearing panel report, dat
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 20/41
For these reasons, the DEC recommended the impos
admonition on respondent.
Following a de novo review of the rec ord, we ar
that the DEC’s finding that respondent’s conduct wa
is fully supported by clear and convincing evidence.
The allegations underlying the charges in the
second counts of the complaint, which respondent
clearly and convincingly establish that he violated R
8.4(a), and RPC 8.4(d). The sarcastic and sophomori
made in the emails and fax set forth in count one dem
failure to treat Feltoon with courtesy and consider
required by RP___~C 3.2. The wildly inappropriate
discriminatory -- comments set forth in count
demonstrated a lack of courtesy and consideration.
Moreover, even though respondent’s behavior was
written communications to Feltoon only (count one) an
communications outside the presence of anyone else (
such conduct violated RP___~C 8.4(d) because, as stated
in In re Vincenti, 114 N.J. 275, 281-82 (1989),
[C]onduct calculated to intimidate an
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 21/41
countenanced. The adversary system depen
on the effectiveness of adversary counsel
Our rules of procedure are designed in larg
measure to bring to litigation adversarie
who have an equal opportunity and comparabl
ability in the representation of opposin
parties in order to assure a just result
Thus, the undue and extraneous oppressio
and harassment of participants involved i
litigation can impair their effectiveness
not only as advocates for their clients, bu
also as officers of the court. An attorn
who consciously and intentionally engages
such conduct perverts advocacy. Suc
conduct redounds only to the detriment o
the proper administration of justice, whi
depends vitally on the reasonable balanc
between adversaries and on opposi
counsels’ respect, trust, and knowledge o
the adversary system. There cannot b
genuine respect of the adversary syste
without respect for the adversary, an
disrespect for the adversary system bespeak
disrespect for the court and the prope
administration of justice.
In that case, like here, the attorney had enga
acts of misconduct that had taken place, arguably,
However, the fact that the misconduct did not take
courtroom or during a proceeding or in the presence
or court personnel or parties or witnesses made no d
the Court in Vincenti. It makes no difference he
Respondent’s conduct was a violation of RPC 8.4(d).
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 22/41
Although respondent’s inappropriate comments a
led to a charge of RP___~C 8.4(c), in counts one and t
is not really applicable, under the circumstances.
falsity of the statements really is not the issue.
is the nature of those statements (offensive and dis
that makes them unethical.
under the RPC 3.2, RPC
Thus, these acts fall mo
8.4(a), and RPC 8.4(d)
Accordingly, we dismiss the RPC 8.4(c) charge as inap
As to count three, we are unable to agree wit
finding that there is no clear and convincing ev
respondent knowingly made a false statement of mate
either Judg e Kassel (RPC 3.3(a)(i)) or to Feltoon (
The same is true of the charge that respondent ha
disclose a material fact to the judg e (RPC 3.3(a)(5))
With the exception of RPC 3.2, and contrary t
finding, the clear and convincing evidence estab
respondent violated the RPCs charged in the third
complaint. Specifically, respondent testified
frequently out of the offic e at critical times and
periods, between service of the motion and the pre
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 23/41
argument. Nevertheless, when respondent answered Jud
questions about his knowledge of the certifications,
never stated that he was out of the office and, the
have overlooked them. Rather, he insisted, at ora
that [n]o certification [was] provided to him or
not have it. He requested that the judge grant hi
to give his client a chance to look at it.
Although it may be true, as the DEC obser
respondent had no reason to lie about the non-rece
certifications, his actions were so contrary
reasonable attorney would have done, if confronted wi
situation, that his story cannot be believed. Wh
would read both a motion, asking that the court order
to pay money, and a supporting brief, st
certifications were attached, and not do anything to
or obtain the certifications before proceeding
written opposition to that motion? Yet, even in t
Feltoon’s reply to respondent’s opposition, which
stated that the certifications were, in fact, sent to
and received by his office, respondent made no effor
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 24/41
He did not ask his secretary about th
certifications. He did not look for them, either in
K drive or in the file. He did not request the ad
the motion, which, admittedly, was likely imposs
eleventh hour. Instead, respondent simply did
certifications, assum[ing ] that the plaintiff was
same thing over and over again.
Moreover, how was respondent even able to submit
to the motion if he was unaware of the basis for
which would have been set forth in the certificati
view, he was indeed able to prepare written opposit
he did have the certifications. He just did not
time to devote sufficient attention to the matter
multiple vacations and the multiple motions (ten to
his estimation) that required a response on the same
in the Joseph case. So, he did what he coul d and dec
more time by claiming that he did not rec
certifications.
In short, respondent’s behavior could not hav
result of either inexperience or ineptitude. B
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 25/41
certifications, a violation of RP___~C 3.3(a)(i), RPC 3.
RPC 4.1(a). However, the record does not suppor
that, by seeking to gain more time to reply to t
respondent intended also to delay the litigation. Th
3.2 charge must be dismissed.
There remains for determination the appropriate
discipline to be imposed for respondent’s violation s
(in two contexts), RPC 3.3(a)(i), RPC 3.3(a)(5), RPC 4.
8.4(a), and RP___~C 8.4(d).
Attorneys who, in violation of RPC 3.2,
disrespectful or insulting conduct to persons invo
legal process, including clients and judges, are s
broad spectrum of discipline, ranging from an admo
term of suspension. Se__~e, e.~., In re Gahles, 1
(2005) (admonition imposed on attorney who, during or
on a custody motion, called the other party crazy,
artist, ....
a f r a u d , . . . a p e r s o n w h o c r i e s o u
and a person who belongs in a loony bin; in mit
considered that the attorney’s statements were n
intimidate the party but, rather, to acquaint the n
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 26/41
Matter of Alfred Sanderson, DRB 01-412 (2002) (
imposed on attorney who, in the course of representi
charged with DWI, made discourteous and d
communications to the municipal court judge and to t
court administrator; in a letter to the judge, t
wrote: How fortunate I am to deal with you. I lose
haven’t had [sic] made. Frankly, I am sick and ti
pro-prosecution cant; the letter went on to say,
lost on me that in 1996 your little court convicted
of the persons accused of DWI in Salem County. The
for this abnormality should even occur to you; in
we considered the attorney’s decades of service as
the bar and the fact that his conduct was motivated
representing his client); In the Matter of John J.
96-094 (1996) (admonition for attorney who engaged
exchange with a judge’s secretary; the attorney stip
the exchange involved loud, verbally aggressive, i
obnoxious language on his part; we noted that, at
the incident, the attorney had been admitted to prac
only one year and that, in the five years since the
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 27/41
who told the wife of a client in a domestic relat
that she should be cut up into little pieces . . .
and sent back to India; and in a letter to his
accused her client of being an unmitigated liar, t
prove it and have her punished for perjury, and thr
adversary with a Battle Royale and ethics charges;
factors included that the attorney had an otherwise
forty-year ethics history, that he recognized that
had been intemperate, and that the incident had occ
years earlier); In re Geller, 177 N.J. 505 (2003)
imposed on attorney who filed baseless motions a
judges of bias against him; failed to expedite litig
treat with courtesy judges (using profanity to chara
judge’s orders and, in a deposition, referring to tw
corrupt and labeling one of them short, ugly and
his adversary ( a thief ), the opposing party ( a
lies like a rug ), and an unrelated litigant (t
asked the judge if he had ordered that character wh
courtroom this morning to see a psychologist ); fail
with court orders (at times defiantly) and with
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 28/41
serious charges against two judges without any reason
made a discriminatory remark about a judge; an
certification filed with the court Fraud in Fre
mitigation, the attorney’s conduct occurred in the co
own child-custody case, the attorney had an unblemis
two-year career, was held in high regard pers
professionally, was involved in legal and community
and taught business law); the attorney also violat
RPC 3.4(c), RP__~C 4.4, RP_~C 8.2(a), RP~ 8.4(d), and RPC 8
re Milita, 177 N.J. 1 (2003) (reprimand imposed on a
wrote an insulting letter to his client’s former pa
complaining witness in a criminal matter involving
an aggravating factor was the attorney’s prior
suspension for misconduct in criminal pretrial negot
for his method in obtaining information to assi[st a c
re Lekas, 136 N.J. 514 (1994) (reprimand; while th
conducting a trial unrelated to her client’s matter
sought to withdraw from the client’s representatio
judge informed her of the correct procedure to follo
her to leave the courtroom because he was conductin
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 29/41
bench during the trial; ultimately, the attorne
escorted out of the courtroom by a police officer; t
struggled against the officer, grabbing onto the s
was being led from the room); In re Stanley, 102 N.J.
(reprimand; attorney engaged in shouting and other
behavior toward the court in three separate
attorney’s languag e, constant interruptions, arrogan
to rulings displayed a contumacious lack of respec
excuse that the trial judge may have been in er
rulings. ; we took into account, on the one han
attorney’s misconduct was not an isolated incident;
hand, we observed that the attorney had been a membe
for more than thirty years, with no prior history,
sixty-seven years old and retired from the practi ce
that there was no harm to a client or party as the re
misconduct); In re Mezzacca, 67 N.J. 387 (1975) (
attorney referred to a departmental review comm
kangaroo court and made other discourteous commen
the Court could not condone the attorney’s behavio
that he had been a practicing attorney for twelve ye
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 30/41
of having become so personally involved in the c
client and the alleged injustice he anticipated, he
emotional state to affect his judgment as an attor
Rifai, 204 N.J. 592 (2011) (three-month suspension i
attorney who called a municipal prosecutor an id
other things; intentionally bumped into an investiga
during a break in a trial; repeatedly had the trial
once based on a false claim of an accident on the Tu
was extremely uncooperative and belligerent with
committee investigator; the attorney had been reprim
prior occasions); In re Supino, 182 N.J. 530 (2005
suspended for three months after he exhibite
intimidating behavior in the course of litigatio
threatened the other party
police officers, and judges;
(his ex-wife), court
other violations in
3.4(g), RPC 3.5(c), and RPC 8.4(d)); In re Vincent
275 (1989) (three-month suspension for attorney who
opposing counsel and a witness to fight, used profan
abusive languag e toward his adversary and an opposi
called a judge’s law clerk incompetent, used a rac
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 31/41
imposed on attorney who, during a deposition, call
counsel stupid and a bush league lawyer; the at
impugned the integrity of the trial judge, by stat
was in the defense’s pocket, a violation of RPC 8.2(
several aggravating
disciplinary history,
reprimand; the absence
factors, that is, the a
which included an admonitio
of remorse; and the fact t
isconduct occurred in front of his two clients
plaintiffs in the very matter in which their lawyer
the judge of being in the pocket of the defense, were
losing confidence in the legal system); and In re V
N.J. 591 (1983) (one-year suspension imposed on a
displayed a pattern of abuse, intimidation, and cont
judges, witnesses, opposing counsel, and other att
attorney engaged in intentional behavior that includ
vulgar profanities, and physical intimidation con
among other things, poking his finger in another
chest and bumping the attorney with his stomach an
shoulder).
In this case, respondent’s conduct toward Fel
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 32/41
year. In addition, respondent’s conduct grew i
hostile, as time went on. It is true that he
modicum of remorse and contrition to the DEC for h
toward Feltoon. Nevertheless, as the presenter poi
oral argument before us, not once, before the di
hearing, did respondent acknowledge his wrongdoi
repentance therefor. As the presenter remarked,
The panel below, as part of th
mitigating circumstances, did indicate tha
the respondent showed contrition. Which i
true. He, did show contrition, at th
hearinq. If you look at the record i
response to the grievance that was file
against him, respondent was very combative
In fact, his position was that he did no
see any sort of ethics violation in th
conduct exhibited by him toward th
grievant. I think he should get some credi
for showing contrition at the hearing, but
don’t know if he should get full credit
only because he didn’t show read
contrition. It would be different if
during the course of the investigation, h
came back and said, ’You know what, I’
sorry.’ I think that would weigh a littl
more heavily in terms of a mitigatin
factor. He should get some credit, but
don’t think he is entitled to full credi
because of that.
[Transcript of oral argument before th
Disciplinary Review Board, January 16, 2014
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 33/41
We, too noted that respondent’s apologies surfa
the disciplinary hearing. In our view, the pr
generous in suggesting that respondent should be
credit for his admission of culpability to the hea
As we observed in In the Matter of Steven Sieqel,
(January 28, 1993) (slip op. at 16), [i]t was
respondent had the misfortune of being apprehen
showed contrition ....
In an earlier case, the
alluded to an attorney’s belated mea culpa:
Although respondent now admits hi
wrongdoing and professes contriti
therefor, it cannot be overlooked that thi
realization is all too recent .... [H]i
newfound remorse surfaced only when it wa
clear that he would be found guilty of mu c
if not all the charged professiona
misconduct and would consequently face
stern sanction.
[In re Stier, 112 N.J. 22, 25 (1988).]
Attorneys who make material misrepresentations
the court and to their adversaries are subject to
ranging from an admonition to a suspension. See, e
Matter of Robin Kay Lord, DRB 01-250 (September
(admonition for attorney who failed to revea l her c
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 34/41
court was not aware of the client’s significant hist
vehicle infractions; in mitigation, the attorney di
client’s real name to the municipal court the day aft
appearance, whereupon the sentence was vacated); In
122 N.J. 244 (1991) (reprimand for attorney who
disclose to a court his representation of a client
lawsuit, where that representation would have been
the court’s ruling on the attorney’s motion to file a
of tort claim); In re Whitmore, 117 N.J. 472 (1990)
for attorney/municipal prosecutor who failed to disc
court that a police officer whose testimony was crit
prosecution of a drunk-driving case intentional
courtroom before the case was called, resulting in t
of the charge); In re Chasar, 182 N.J. 459 (2005) (
suspension for attorney who, in her own divorce p
filed with the court a false certification in which
having made cash payments to her employees; she a
certification on behalf of her secretary, in which t
falsely claimed not to have received cash payments; t
who had no prior discipline, violated RPC 3.3(
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 35/41
of misrepresentations to a municipal court judge to
repeated tardiness and failure to appear at hearing
that, if not for mitigating factors, the discipline
been much harsher); In re Mark, 132 N.J. 268 (1993) (
suspension for attorney who misrepresented to a cou
adversary had been supplied with an expert’s repo
support of that statement, fabricated two transmittal
mitigation, the attorney was not aware that his sta
untrue, given the firm’s operating procedures, and, i
he was under considerable stress from assuming the
three attorneys who had recently left the firm); In
118 N.J. 361 (1990) (three-month suspension for a
failed to inform the court, in his own mat rimonial m
he had transferred property to his mother for no con
and for failure to amend his certification listing
the attorney had a prior private reprimand ); In re J
N.J. 504 (1986) (three-month suspension for
misrepresentation to a judge that his associate was
the attorney could get an adjournment); In re Forres
429 (1999) (six-month suspension imposed on attorn
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 36/41
the court, to his adversary, and to an arbitrator,
the surviving spouse not to voluntarily reveal the
attorney’s motive was to obtain a personal injury s
In re Telson, 138 N.J. 47 (1994) (six-month susp
attorney who concealed a judge’s docket entry dis
client’s divorce complaint, obtained a divorce ju
another judge without disclosing that the first judg
the request, and denied his conduct to a third jud
admit to this judge one week later that he had lied
was scared); In re Cillo, 155 N.J. 599 (1998)
suspension for attorney who, after misrepresenting
that a case had been settled and that no other attorn
appearing for a conference, obtained a judge’s sign
order dismissing the action and disbursing all escr
his client; the attorney knew that at least one o
would be appearing at the conference and that a trus
required that at least $500,000 of the escrow fund
reserve); and In re Kornreich, 149 N.J. 346 (1997)
suspension for attorney who, after being invo
automobile accident, misrepresented to the police,
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 37/41
operating her vehicle and who presented false evi
attempt to falsely accuse another of her own wrongdoin
Although none of these cases are really on
nature of respondent’s conduct is
attorney in Johnson. There, the
closest to tha
attorney lied
associate’s poor health in order to obtain an ad
Here, respondent
certifications in
adjournment.
lied about the non-receipt
order to obtain the equival
The attorney in Johnson received a t
suspension for his misconduct. We note, however, tha
was decided in 1986, which was six years before
created censure as a form of discipline, in 2002.
Thus, were Johnson before us and the Court after Ju
might have received a censure.
Here, given the totality of respondent’s misco
is, his insulting remarks to Feltoon, in writing and
his misrepresentations to Feltoon and to Judge K
respect to his non-receipt of the certification
obvious lack of early recognition of and regret for h
we determine a three-month suspension is the appropri
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 38/41
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 39/41
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DISCIPLINARY REVIEW
BOARD
VOTING RECORD
In the Matter of Jared E. Stolz
Docket No. DRB 13-331
Argued: January 16, 2014
Decided: March 18, 2014
Disposition: Three-month suspension
em ers
Frost
Baugh
Clark
Doremus
Gallipoli
Hoberman
Singer
Yamner
Disbar Three-
month
Suspension
X
X
X
X
X
X
Six-month
Suspension
Dismiss Disquali
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 40/41
8/11/2019 Jared E. Stolz Disciplinary Opinion
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jared-e-stolz-disciplinary-opinion 41/41