complaint answer and stip

Document Sample
complaint answer and stip Powered By Docstoc
					Dave Wendel, Esq. Presenter
155 Morris Ave
Springfield, NJ 07081
(973) 564-9595


                                      :    SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DISTRICT ETHICS COMMITTEE             :    DISTRICT XII ETHICS COMMITTEE
                                      :
           Complainant,               :    DOCKET NO:    XII-01-029E
                                      :                  XII-01-035E
     vs.                              :                  XII-01-038E
                                      :
CYNTHIA D. JACKSON                    :    DISCIPLINARY ACTION
                                      :
           Respondent,                :    COMPLAINT FOR MISCONDUCT


     District XII Ethics Committee by way of complaint against

respondent says:

                            GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

     1.    Cynthia D. Jackson (respondent) was admitted to the Bar of

this State in 1987.

     2.    Respondent maintains law offices at CD Jackson & Associates,

485-87 Martin Luther King Drive, Jersey City, New Jersey 07304.

                                 FIRST COUNT
                                 XII-01-029E
                         (Eileen Rhea Tulipan, Esq.)

     1.    On May 9, 2001, this Committee received a written grievance

from Eileen Rhea Tulipan, Esq. with regard to a Domestic Violence

matter wherein Ms. Tulipan represented Terrance Mays, defendant and

Frederick Worrell, plaintiff in a cross-complaint matter wherein the

plaintiff, Jacquelin E Worrell was represented by the respondent.
These matters were consolidated by the Honorable Mac D. Hunter, J.S.C.

in Hudson County, Superior Court of New Jersey.

     2.   Respondent contacted Terrance Mays, Ms. Tulipan’s client

prior to a scheduled hearing, on or about February 26, 2001, advising

that her client, Jacquelin E. Worrell, was withdrawing her Domestic

Violence Complaint against him and inquiring if Mr. Mays would testify

on behalf of respondent’s client against Frederick Worrell. At the

time, Ms. Tulipan’s client, Frederick Worrell and respondent’s client,

Jacquelin E. Worrell, were married.

     3.   There existed pre-trial correspondence by Ms. Tulipan to the

Court with regard to pre-trial case management questions; a pre-trial

questionnaire from Judge Hunter (dated January 31, 2001 and February

14, 2001); and summonses from the Court which clearly indicated that

Ms. Tulipan represented both Mr. Mays and Mr. Worrell.

     4.   Respondent, in directly contacting clients of another

attorney, failed to exercise reasonable diligence pursuant to RPC 4.2,

which is required by an attorney in order to know whether the person

or persons being directly contacted are represented by counsel.

     5.   Respondent’s conduct in this matter when combined with other

acts of neglect as alleged in this pleading demonstrates a pattern of

neglect in violation of RPC 1.1(b).

                             SECOND COUNT
                             XII-01-035E
                           (Carol H. Hakim)
    1.   in 1997, respondent was retained by Carol H. Hakim, of 1027

Paces Run Court, Columbia, South Carolina 29223, on behalf of herself

in connection with a foreclosure action instituted against her by a

financial institution, Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

    2.   Ms. Hakim complains that she was not properly advised on the

status and actions be taken by respondent; that respondent’s failure

to properly communicate with her amounted to gross neglect; and that

respondent failed to act with due diligence. Ms. Hakim further

complains that respondent’s actions as herein described resulted in

unfavorable Court actions against her.

    3.   On July 10, 1997, respondent advised Citicorp Mortgage

Corporation of her representation for Ms. Hakim and that Ms. Hakim’s

intent was to execute a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure.   Citicorp

Mortgage Corporation requested specific information from respondent

regarding her client, Ms. Hakim on August 28, 1997. On October 9,

1997, Citicorp Mortgage Corporation declined the offer of a Deed in

Lieu of Foreclosure based upon their criteria.

    4.   On October 20, 1997, Citicorp Mortgage Corporation forwarded

a Summons and Complaint (and Amendment) to respondent. There is no

record in respondent’s file that service on behalf of her client was

either accepted or refused.   On November 17, 1997, respondent advised

Ms. Hakim that she was attempting to negotiate a Deed in Lieu of

Foreclosure which had been previously denied on October 9,1997.    There

is no record in respondent’s file that Ms. Hakim was notified of said
refusal or that Ms. Hakim was notified by respondent that a Summons

and Complaint had been filed.   In fact, respondent forwarded a Deed in

Lieu of Foreclosure to Ms. Hakim who executed and returned same. On

October 22, 1998, respondent apologizes to Ms. Hakim for the delay in

updating the status of the matter and alleges that she is in the

process of ascertaining the current status.

     5.   On or about November 9, 1998, Ms. Hakim was served with the

Summons arid Complaint by a sheriffs officer. Ms. Hakim forwarded

these documents to respondent advising that a response was due in 35

days. On December 17, 1998, respondent received, pursuant to her

request, another copy of the Summons and Complaint.

     6.   On January 6, 1999, Citicorp Mortgage Corporation obtained a

Judgment by Default as respondent failed to act with due diligence in

pleading on her client’s behalf.   Nearly a month and a half later,

respondent requested Citicorp Mortgage Corporations’ counsel to

execute a Consent Order Vacating Default and permitting her to file an

answer out of time.   Said request was declined; however, Citicorp

Mortgage Corporation requested respondent to contact them to discuss

satisfaction of the Default Judgment.   On May 18, 1999, respondent

finally notified Ms. Hakim that she would have to file a Motion to

Vacate Default and would do so within ten (10) days. There exists no

record of such a motion ever being prepared or filed. On May 28, 1999,

Citicorp Mortgage Corporation’s counsel obtained an Order for Arrest

against Ms. Hakim for failure to respond to an Information Subpoena.
     7.    On June 17, 1999, respondent writes Citicorp Mortgage

Corporation’s counsel stating she was “at a loss as to why this

occurred when a deed in lieu of foreclosure was sent”.

     8.    Respondent’s failure to institute appropriate, timely

litigation on behalf of Hakim constituted gross neglect in violation

of RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 3.2.

     9.    Respondent’s failure to keep her client adequately and

accurately informed and her deceit and misrepresentation of facts

constituted a violation of RPC 1.4(a) and RPC 8.4(c).

     10.   Respondent’s conduct in handling the defense of Hakim

constituted gross neglect in violation of RPC 1.1(a) and a violation

of RPC 3.2.

     11.   Respondent’s conduct in this matter when combined with other

acts of neglect as alleged in this pleading, demonstrates a pattern of

neglect in violation of RPC 1.1(b).

                              THIRD COUNT
                              XII-01-038E
                          (Elena C. Pamplona)

     1.    In or about January, 2001, Elena C. Pamplona, M.D. of 57

Ybanez Street, Tabuelan, Cebu, Philippines 6044, interviewed

respondent in regard to retaining her services with regard to

protecting Ms. Pamplona’s interest in her daughter and son-in-law’s

home via lien for monies Ms. Pamplona lent to them in the approximate

amount of $31,000.0O.   The home was being placed for sale and Ms.

Pamplona desired to protect her interest therein. Respondent requested
a $3,000.00 retainer and agreed to accept, on or about February 15,

2001, $800.00 via two postdated checks along with a payment plan for

the remaining balance.   Ms. Pamplona provided two postdated checks,

dated February 24, 2001 and March 5, 2001, with the understanding that

respondent would issue a letter to Ms. Pamplona’s daughter within two

weeks. Time was of the essence as the subject house had been placed on

the market and there was a potential buyer.

     2.    Respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Pamplona’s

daughter as promised.    In fact, when respondent was advised that there

was a potential buyer and that time was of the essence, respondent

allegedly assured Ms. Pamplona that it would take three (3) months to

close on the said property.

     3.    Beginning in or about the end of March, 2001, and after Ms

Pamplona was notified that the buyer’s loan had been approved, Ms.

Pamplona repeatedly attempted to contact the respondent, via telephone

and personal appearances at her office, with no result.   No telephone

calls were returned by respondent and respondent or her staff were not

present at any time Ms. Pamplona personally appeared at respondent’s

office.   Ms. Pamplona recalls one specific occasion when she called

respondent and while speaking with respondent’s receptionist overheard

respondent state that she would not respond as she was on her way out.

     4.    Respondent provides a Lis Pendens alleged to have been

forwarded to the Court for filing on or about March 6, 2001 and

alleges in her own response that it had been returned not filed as
there had been no prior Complaint in this matter.    However, the

document provided by respondent fails to reflect a “received on” or

“filed” date and respondent fails to provide any cover letter from the

Clerk of the Court indicating that the Lis Pendens was being returned

for nonconforming reasons. Furthermore, respondent had told Ms.

Pamplona that she had been on vacation during the first two weeks in

March, 2001 which raises questions as to respondent’s truthfulness

regarding the attempted filing of the Lis Pendens.

     5.   The property was ultimately closed on or about May 13, 2001.

Ms. Pamplona’s daughter and son-in-law vacated same on or about June

16, 2001. Ms. Pamplona was forced to vacate same on or about July 25,

2001. Ms. Pamplona was forced to return to the Philippines due to her

own financial situation.

     6.   On July 30, 2001, some twenty-one days after Ms. Pamplona

filed the grievance complaint in the instant matter, respondent filed

a Complaint against Ms. Pamplona’s daughter and son-in-law.

     7.   As a result of respondent’s failure to timely and diligently

purse this matter, Ms. Pamplona lost all interest and ability to

recover approximately $31,000.00.

     8.   Respondent’s failure to institute appropriate, timely

litigation on behalf of Pamplona constituted gross neglect in

violation of RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 3.2.
     9.    Respondent’s failure to keep her client adequately and

accurately informed and her deceit and misrepresentation of facts

constituted a violation of RPC 1.4(a) and RPC 8.4(c).

     10.   Respondent’s conduct in this matter when combined with other

acts of neglect as alleged in this pleading, demonstrates a patter of

neglect in violation of RPC 1.1(b).

                                      DISTRICT ETHICS COMMITTEE

Dated: February 11, 2002              /s/ DAVID WENDEL, ESQ.
MILLER, MEYERSON, SCHWARTZ & CORBO
955 West Side Avenue
Jersey City, New Jersey 07306
(201) 333—9000
Attorneys for Respondent


                                     :   SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DISTRICT ETHICS COMMITTEE            :   DISTRICT XII ETHICS COMMITTEE
                                     :
           Complainant,              :   DOCKET NO:     XII-01-029E
                                     :                  XII-01-035E
     vs.                             :                  XII-01-038E
                                     :
CYNTHIA D. JACKSON                   :   DISCIPLINARY ACTION
                                     :
           Respondent,               :   ANSWER TO COMPLAINT


     Cynthia 0. Jackson, by way of Answer to the Complaint, says that:

                            GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

     1.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 1.

     2.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 2.

                               FIRST COUNT

     1.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 1.

     2.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 2.

     3.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 3.

     4.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 4.

     5.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 5.

                               SECOND COUNT

     1.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 1.

     2.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 2 to the extent

Carol Hakim filed the complaint made the allegations alleged but
as to the substance of those allegations they are addressed in the

remaining paragraphs of the Answer to this count of the Complaint.

     3.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 3.

     4.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 4 and adds the she

has no direct recollection and relies upon the correspondence.

     5.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 5.

     6.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 6 as to lack of due

diligence in the context in that the motion was beyond the scope of

representation, but admits the remaining allegations.

     7.    She admits the allegations of paragraph 7.

     8.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 8.

     9.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 9.

     10.   She denies the allegations of paragraph 10.

     ll.   She denies the allegations of paragraph 11.

                              THIRD COUNT



     1.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 1.

     2.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 2.

     3.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 3.

     4.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 4.

     5.    She has insufficient information either to admit or deny the

allegations of paragraph 5.

     6.    She denies that she had notice of grievance or had knowledge

of same at the time of the filing of the Complaint.
    7.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 7.

    8.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 8.

    9.    She denies the allegations of paragraph 9.

    10.   She denies the allegations of paragraph 10.

                              MILLER, MEYERSON, SCHWARTZ & CORBO



Dated: March 13, 2002         /s/ Gerald D. Miller
Dave Wendel, Esq. Presenter
155 Morris Ave
Springfield, NJ 07081
(973) 564-9595


                                   :    SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
DISTRICT ETHICS COMMITTEE          :    DISTRICT XII ETHICS COMMITTEE
                                   :
           Complainant,            :    DOCKET NO:     XII-01-029E
                                   :                   XII-01-035E
     vs.                           :                   XII-01-038E
                                   :
CYNTHIA D. JACKSON                 :    DISCIPLINARY ACTION
                                   :
           Respondent,             :    STIPULATION


THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE STIPULATED:

     1.    Cynthia D. Jackson (respondent) was admitted to the Bar of

this State in 1987.

     2.    Respondent maintains law offices at CD Jackson & Associates

485-87 Martin Luther King Drive, Jersey City, New Jersey 07304.

     3.    On May 9, 2001, this Committee received a written grievance

from Eileen Rhea Tulipan, Esq. with regard to a Domestic Violence

matter wherein Ms. Tulipan represented Terrance Mays, defendant, and

Frederick Worrell, plaintiff, in a cross-complaint matter wherein the

plaintiff, Jacquelin E. Worrell was represented by the respondent.

These matters were consolidated by the Honorable Mac D Hunter, J.S.C.

in Hudson County, Superior Court of New Jersey.

     4.    Respondent contacted Terrance Mays, Ms. Tulipan’s client

prior to a scheduled hearing, on or about February 26, 2001, advising

that her client, Jacquelin E. Worrell, was withdrawing her Domestic
Violence Complaint against him and inquiring if Mr. Mays would testify

on behalf of respondent’s client against Frederick Worrell. At the

time, Ms. Tulipan’s client, Frederick Worrell and respondent’s client,

Jacquelin E. Worrell, were married.

     5.   There existed pre-trial correspondence by Ms. Tulipan to the

Court with regard to pre-trial case management questions; a pre-trial

questionnaire from Judge Hunter (dated January 31, 2001 and February

14, 2001); and summonses from the Court which indicated that Ms.

Tulipan represented both Mr. Mays and Mr. Worrell.

     6.   Respondent, in directly contacting clients of another

attorney, failed to exercise reasonable diligence pursuant to RPC 4.2,

which is required by an attorney in order to know whether the person

or persons being directly contacted are represented by counsel.

     7.   In 1997, respondent was retained by Carol H. Hakim, of 1027

Paces Run Court, Columbia, South Carolina 29223, on behalf of herself

in connection with a foreclosure action instituted against her by a

financial institution, Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

     8.   Ms. Hakim complained that she was not properly advised on

the status and actions be taken by respondent; that respondent’s

failure to properly communicate with her amounted to gross neglect;

and that respondent failed to act with due diligence. Ms. Hakim

further complains that respondent’s actions as herein described

resulted in unfavorable Court actions against her.
     9.    On July 10, 1997, respondent advised Citicorp Mortgage

Corporation of her representation for Ms. Hakim and that Ms. Hakim’s

intent was to execute a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. Citicorp Mortgage

Corporation requested specific information from respondent regarding

her client, Ms. Hakim on August 28, 1997. On October 9, 1997, Citicorp

Mortgage Corporation declined the offer of a Deed in Lieu of

Foreclosure based upon their criteria.

     10.   On October 20, 1997, Citicorp Mortgage Corporation forwarded

a Summons and Complaint (and Amendment) to respondent. On November 17,

1997, respondent advised Ms Hakim that she was attempting to negotiate

a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure which had been previously denied on

October 9, 1997. There is no record in respondent’s file that Ms.

Hakim was notified of said refusal or that Ms. Hakim was notified by

respondent that a Summons and Complaint had been filed. In fact,

respondent forwarded a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure to Ms. Hakim who

executed and returned same. On October 22, 1998, respondent apologized

to Ms. Hakim for the delay in updating the status of the matter and

alleges that she is in the process of ascertaining the current status.

     11.   On or about November 9, 1998, Ms Hakim was served with the

Summons and Complaint by a sheriff’s officer.   Ms. Hakim forwarded

these documents to respondent advising that a response was due in 35

days. On December 17, 1998, respondent received, pursuant to her

request, another copy of the Summons and Complaint.
     12.    On January 6, 1999, Citicorp Mortgage Corporation obtained a

Judgment by Default as respondent failed to act with due diligence in

pleading on her client’s behalf. Nearly a month and a half later,

respondent requested Citicorp Mortgage Corporations’ counsel to

execute a Consent Order Vacating Default and permitting her to file an

answer out of time.    Said request was declined, however, Citicorp

Mortgage Corporation requested respondent to contact them to discuss

satisfaction of the Default Judgment.    On May 18, 1999, respondent

notified Ms. Hakim that she would have to file a Motion to Vacate

Default and would do so within ten (10) days.   No motion was prepared

or filed.    On May 28, 1999, Citicorp Mortgage Corporation’s counsel

obtained an Order for Arrest against Ms. Hakim for failure to respond

to an Information Subpoena.

     13.    On June 17, 1999. respondent wrote Citicorp Mortgage

Corporation’s counsel stating she was “at a loss as to why this

occurred when a deed in lieu of foreclosure was sent”.

     14.    Respondent’s failure to institute appropriate, timely

litigation on behalf of Hakim constituted gross neglect in violation

of RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 3.2.

     15.    Respondent’s failure to keep her client adequately and

accurately informed constituted a violation of RPC 1.4(a).

     16.    Respondent’s conduct in handling the defense of Hakim

constituted gross neglect in violation of RPC 1.1(a) and a violation

of RPC 3.2.
     17.   In or about January, 2001, Elena C Pamplona, M D. of 57

Ybanez Street, Tabuelan, Cebu, Philippines 6044, interviewed

respondent in regard to retaining her services with regard to

protecting Ms. Pamplona’s interest in her daughter and son-in-law’s

home via lien for monies Ms. Pamplona lent to them in the approximate

amount of $31,000.00. The home was being placed for sale and Ms.

Pamplona desired to protect her interest therein.   Respondent

requested a $3,000.00 retainer and agreed to accept, on or about

February 15, 2001, $800.00 via two postdated checks along with a

payment plan for the remaining balance. Ms. Pamplona provided two

postdated checks, dated February 24, 2001 and March 5, 2001, with the

understanding that respondent would issue a letter to Ms. Pamplona’s

daughter within two weeks. Time was of the essence as the subject

house had been placed on the market and there was a potential buyer.

     18.   Respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Pamplona’s

daughter as promised.   In fact, when respondent was advised that there

was a potential buyer and that time was of the essence.

     19.   Beginning in or about the end of March, 2001, and after Ms.

Pamplona was notified that the buyer’s loan had been approved.     Ms.

Pamplona repeatedly attempted to contact the respondent, via telephone

and personal appearances at her office, with no result.   No telephone

calls were returned by respondent and respondent or her staff were not

present at any time Ms. Pamplona personally appeared at respondent’s

office.
     20.    Respondent forwarded a Lis Pendens forwarded to the Court

for filing on or about March 6, 2001 which was returned not filed as

there had been no prior Complaint in this matter.

     21.    The property was ultimately closed on or about May 13, 2001.

Ms. Pamplona’s daughter and son-in-law vacated same on or about June

16, 2001.    Ms. Pamplona was forced to vacate same on or about July 25,

2001. Ms. Pamplona was forced to return to the Philippines due to her

own financial situation.

     22.    On July 30, 2001 respondent filed a Complaint against Ms

Pamplona’s daughter and son-in-law.

     23.    Respondent’s failure to institute appropriate, timely

litigation on behalf of Pamplona constituted gross neglect in

violation of RPC 1.1(a) and RPC 3.2.

     24.    Respondent’s failure to keep her client adequately and

accurately informed constituted a violation of RPC 1.4(a).

     24.    Respondent’s conduct in this matter when combined with other

acts of neglect as set forth in this stipulation constituted a pattern

of neglect in violation of RPC 1.1(b).

                                    DISTRICT ETHICS COMMITTEE

Dated: May 1, 2002                  /s/ DAVID WENDEL, ESQ.



Dated: April 19, 2002               /s/ CYNTHIA JACKSON, ESQ.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:25
posted:7/15/2010
language:English
pages:17