An attorney was censured by the New Jersey Supreme Courtafter the Disciplinary Review Board determined that his conduct towards a nonpaying client violated ethics rules barring both conflicts of interest and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. PRISON
The attorney in question, Logan Terry, represented an individual who was accused of sexual assault on minors. The client potentially faced more than 200 years in prison. According to Terry, the client had been uncooperative and had failed to pay his legal fees, leading Terry to request withdrawal from the representation. The judge turned him down twice.
Mere days before the client’s trial, Terry texted his client to tell him that he refused to prepare an adequate defense without receiving compensation for the work he’d done. Rather than terminating this communication on civil terms, Terry followed up these texts with another text that read, “HAVE FUN IN PRISON.” The client shared the texts with the judge and made a request to terminate his attorney/client relationship, which was then granted. The judge also dismissed the jury to reschedule the trial at a future time, once new counsel had taken up the representation.
The Disciplinary Review Board found that Terry had violatedRule 1.7(c), the rule barring conflicts of interest by placing his own interest––being paid for his services––above that of the client’s. The Board further found that Terry’s message constituted behavior prejudicial to the administration of justice, violating Rule 8.4(d), because the message ultimately led to a delay in the proceedings. Specifically, the trial was rescheduled and the jury had to be released, and the court system has an interest in expedient resolution of cases.
The Board acknowledged that Terry “was in a difficult position,” as he not only was forced to continue representing a difficult client, but he had also not received compensation for what had been an arduous representation. Terry also had no previous record of discipline in 15 years of practice. Nevertheless, attorneys are expected to behave with decorum, even when their clients do not, and Terry’s insidiousness in declaring that he refused to prepare diligently so close to the trial date is inexcusable.
Read the decision here.
