From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Mott

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Oct 20, 2017
231 N.J. 22 (N.J. 2017)

Opinion

D–120 Sept. Term 2016 079179

10-20-2017

In the MATTER OF Mary R. MOTT, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 025081989)


CORRECTED ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16–253, concluding that MARY R. MOTT of BAPTISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and permanently barred from future service as a municipal prosecutor for violating RPC 1.7(a) (2) (engaging in a conflict of interest); RPC 1.16(a) (failing to decline or terminate representation in violation of the RPCs ); RPC 3.1 (asserting an issue with no basis in law or fact); RPC 3.3(a) (1) (knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), RPC 3.3(a) (4)and (5) (candor toward a tribunal); RPC 8.1(a) (false statements to disciplinary authorities); and RPC 8.4(a) (c), and (d) (false swearing);

And the Court having determined from its review of the matter that the appropriate discipline for respondent's unethical conduct is a six-month term of suspension and a five-year prohibition against serving as a municipal prosecutor;And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARY R. MOTT is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and until the further Order of the Court, effective November 20, 2017; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall be prohibited from serving as a municipal prosecutor for a period of five years; 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

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 Mott

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Oct 20, 2017
231 N.J. 22 (N.J. 2017)
Case details for

In re Mott

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF Mary R. MOTT, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 025081989)

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: Oct 20, 2017

Citations

231 N.J. 22 (N.J. 2017)
171 A.3d 206

Citing Cases

In re Silebi

Similarly, in In re Mott, 231 N.J. 22 (2017), the Court imposed a six-month suspension on a municipal…

In re Segal

Given Boylan's misconduct, the Court found that "the impugnment of the integrity of the legal system" was…