Skip to main content

Reviews

Not yet reviewed

About me

My practice areas are limited to corporate, commercial and business law.  I have extensive experience representing small and medium sized businesses and work closely with management and business owners to develop appropriate strategies for addressing complex business issues, including shareholder/partnership/LLC issues; investor relationships, banking and financing, including asset based lending and other commercial lending issues, commercial agreements between businesses, as well as business restructuring, workouts and reorganizations.  


 


I have broad experience having worked at prominent law firms in New York and New Jersey.  I am expert at handling challenging and difficult cases and provide small and medium sized businesses with a level of service and expertise that is usually reserved for large corporations who can afford to hire major corporate law firms.


 


My primary focus is on providing general corporate counsel to clients in technology, life sciences and commercial real estate development who require expert professional advice on regulatory compliance, intellectual property, complex transactional law, and related legal and business issues. 


 


At present, I am not accepting new clients except on a referral basis. 


____________________________________


 


Note: New Jersey Attorney Disciplinary History:  


____________________________________


 


Throughout my career, I have been dedicated to upholding the highest ethical and professional standards of conduct as an attorney practicing in the State of New Jersey and in the State of New York.   Despite this commitment, I have been on the receiving end of two Public Letters of Admonition from the NJ DRB relating to administrative lapses by my law firm, including not timely filing papers in an administrative proceeding and not timely submitting payment for the annual attorney registration fee.  


 


Unlike other states, New Jersey instituted a policy of eliminating all private disciplinary measures against attorneys who failed to timely comply their adminitrative responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Instead, New Jersey instituted the practice of issuing public "Letters of Admonition" as a disciplinary measure to address minor instances of administrative noncompliance.  It is the least serious disciplinary action and involves no additional sanctions, penalties or professional restrictions.  


 


 I received two public Letters of Admonition on account of  (1) the failure to timely file a formal written response in a grievance proceeding (2000), and (2) for practicing law for while ineligible due to an oversight in timely paying annual attorney registration fees (2004).  As such, these public admonitions involved administrative matters and do not reflect adversely on my professional ethics or conduct in my handling of matters on behalf of my firm's clients. 


 


The first instance involved a formal letter of admonition. The letter itself does not relate the underlying facts of my prompt affirmative compliance with the grievance process, including preparation of an initial letter replying to the grievances, prompt hand delivery of the clients' legal files to the investigator, a 2 hour conference with the investigator to review the files at a scheduled appointment  at the investigator's office, and, ultimately, the dismissal of the grievances as being without merit. Both grievances were filed by individual clients referred to my office by the Morris County Lawyer Referral Service and were not regular business clients of my law firm.  The gist of both grievances was that my firm refused to release the legal files to the client until their legal bill was paid as is common practice in NJ. Having delivered the files to the investigator, there was an expectation that the grievances were vitiated and the interests of the law firm preserved. I did not hear anything further on the status of the matter and, in the interim, my law firm moved its offices.


 


Subsequently, the investigator wrote to me on several occasions requesting that I submit a formal written reply to the grievances as required under the rules.  I did not have any record of receiving these requests at my office, and the investigator acknowledged that both the certified and non-certified letters had been returned.(I had moved to new offices and the 6 month period for the post office to forward mail had apparently expired by the time the investigatory's requests were mailed).   Despite this frustrating circumstance, it remained that I had an affirmative responsibility to timely file a formal written response to the grievances as required under the rules. As soon as I was made aware of my oversight, the formal replies were submitted, resulting in the formal dismissal of the grievances. 


 


In the second instance, I discovered that I had overlooked the payment of the annual dues I paid them immediately. The result was that for a period of about 90 days, I was ineligible to practice law at a time when I was providing legal services on behalf of corporate clients.  Despite attending to my oversight, I later received a communication from the regional investigator responsible for contacting all attorneys who failed to pay their annual dues.  I acknowledged the my oversight and consented to the public admonition at that time.


 


It is every attorney's affirmative responsibility to ensure at all times that they are in compliance with the Rules of Professional Responsibility, and in these two instances, there is no question but that those responsibilities were not timely met. Both incidents involve minor but, nevertheless important administrative lapses that should not occur, even while managing a busy law practice. Importantly, these oversights were not intentional and do not reflect anyaffirmative or willful misconduct or any unethical behavior toward any client.  They are regrettable exceptions to my commitment to fullfil all of my professional responsibilities as an attorney, but they do not implicate my professional integrity or commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards of our profession. 


 


Under the Revised Disciplinary Rules in New Jersey that eliminated private attorney discipline,  Public Letters of Admonition are to be issued when there has been a finding of minor administrative noncompliance with the Rules of Professional Responsibility in New Jersey.  An Admonition is the least serious sanction issued by the DRB and are given for noncompliance with the Rules of Professional Responsibility regardless of whether such noncompliance was knowing or intentional. Previously, such lapses would result in a private admonition. 


 


 

More 

Practice areas

Licensed

  1. Unspecified: 100%

Attorney endorsements

No endorsements

Endorsements from fellow lawyers are an important consideration for many when selecting the right attorney. Be the first to endorse your colleague!

Are you an attorney? Endorse this lawyer

Contact info

219 Route 32
Suite 201A
Central Valley, NY, 10917-3609

Resume

License
StateStatusAcquiredUpdated
NYDue to reregister within 30 days of birthday 198703/07/2016
NJLicense Administratively Revoked198706/25/2016

Professional misconduct

This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority.

  1. Admonition
    issued in NJ, 2004

    updated

    An admonition means an attorney did something wrong but may still practice law. The Bar gives the lawyer an admonition in hopes that he or she will not repeat the behavior.

    Andrew’s comment: “I consented to this admonition because I was responsible for not ensuring timely payment of the annual attorney registration fee. For further details of this citation, please read the "About Me". section above.”

  2. Admonition
    issued in NJ, 2000

    updated

    An admonition means an attorney did something wrong but may still practice law. The Bar gives the lawyer an admonition in hopes that he or she will not repeat the behavior.

    Andrew’s comment: “This involves a lapse in filing a formal written reply to grievances my firm received. There was never an intentional refusal to cooperate with the investigator. When the grievances were filed, I sent a letter response, delivered the files, and met with the investigator. As an oversight, formal written responses were not submitted. When I learned of this, the responses were immediately filed, and the grievances were dismissed. For further details, see the "About Me" section”

Avvo contributions
Legal answers