.

Legal Updates for Lawyers' Professional Liability

KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISCIPLINARY MATTERS AND CIVIL LITIGATION

Legal Updates for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – November 2023

November 1, 2023

by Alesia S. Sulock

One of the most important things for an attorney to understand when faced with a disciplinary proceeding is that the disciplinary process is not civil litigation. An attorney who understands the differences between a disciplinary matter and litigation is likely to have a far easier time navigating the disciplinary system than one who lacks that knowledge.

First, the disciplinary process proceeds differently than litigation. It begins with the filing of a complaint with the relevant disciplinary authority. The attorney against whom the complaint is filed typically will not know the complaint has been filed unless it survives the initial intake process (although this is not the case in all states). The majority of complaints are dismissed on intake as lacking merit. If the complaint survives intake, a request for the attorney’s position will be issued. This is often the first time the attorney knows a disciplinary matter has been commenced. The attorney has an opportunity to respond, after which disciplinary counsel determines whether to proceed. This is the time when an attorney should retain counsel experienced in disciplinary matters. We have all heard the adage “a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.” This is even more true in the area of disciplinary matters. If the matter proceeds, it moves on to a formal complaint, an answer, discovery, a hearing, and ultimately, a recommendation for discipline. The high court of the state typically must approve any imposition of discipline.

Second, the disciplinary process is confidential, to a point. The intake process and the initial request for the attorney’s position are usually entirely confidential. An attorney facing a disciplinary matter that has survived intake will have an opportunity to respond to the allegations of ethical violations before the matter becomes public. (There are very rare occasions where an immediate emergency temporary suspension is warranted, and those matters may become public sooner.) This gives the attorney a unique opportunity to resolve matters which simply need explaining before they are required to be disclosed to the public.

Third, and most importantly, the way an attorney responds to the initial request for information can “make or break” the disciplinary process. Unlike litigation, it is not advisable to simply deny the allegations made. Instead, an attorney should provide responsive, thorough, and honest answers. It is critical to accept responsibility for mistakes and show remorse for misconduct or ethical violations. An attorney should share mitigating factors, or explanations for the conduct, when appropriate. 

Lastly, the attorney should provide a plan for moving forward that includes rectifying mistakes and putting procedures in place to prevent future problems. 

By understanding these key differences and, of course, retaining counsel experienced with the disciplinary process early, attorneys can navigate the disciplinary process more smoothly. 
 

 

Legal Update for Lawyers’ Professional Liability – November 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.