From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Jackson

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Sep 17, 2020
244 N.J. 193 (N.J. 2020)

Opinion

D-107 September Term 2019 084181

09-17-2020

In the MATTER OF Samuel D. JACKSON, An Attorney At Law (Attorney No. 130452017)


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 19-295, concluding that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20- 13(c), Samuel D. Jackson of Purchase, New York, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2017, and who has been suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 1:20-13 (b) since February 6, 2019, should be suspended from practice for a period of six months, based on respondent's guilty pleas entered in the Supreme Court of New York to two counts of unlawful surveillance in the second degree, a Class E felony, in violation of 250.45(4) of the Penal Law of the State of New York, conduct that in New Jersey is in violation of RPC 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that respondent's suspension from practice should be retroactive to February 6, 2019, the effective date of respondent's temporary suspension from practice pursuant to Rule 1:20-13 (b);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further determined that respondent should continue to receive psychological counseling and that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent should provide proof of his continued counseling and fitness to practice law and that following reinstatement to practice, respondent should continue to receive psychological counseling and provide proof thereof to the OAE, for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court; And Samuel D. Jackson having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that Samuel D. Jackson is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, retroactive to February 6, 2019, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to receive psychological counseling and prior to reinstatement to practice, shall provide proof of his continuing participation in counseling and his fitness to practice law, as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that following reinstatement to practice, respondent shall continue to receive psychological counseling and to provide proof thereof to the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years, and until the further Order of the Court; 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 l: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

ORDERED 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.


Summaries of

In re Jackson

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Sep 17, 2020
244 N.J. 193 (N.J. 2020)
Case details for

In re Jackson

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF Samuel D. JACKSON, An Attorney At Law (Attorney No…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: Sep 17, 2020

Citations

244 N.J. 193 (N.J. 2020)
237 A.3d 929

Citing Cases

In re Weinstein

First, the OAE cited In re Jackson, 244 N.J. 193 (2020), arguing that respondent's misconduct was analogous…