MyParalegalSpace
Home Search Messages Events Friends Calendar Chat Groups ParalegalGateway.com Paralegal Career Center Forum
July 29, 2008
Lawyers Reprimanded for Paralegal Bonuses

And we wonder why our salaries and bonuses are so low!!!

The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded nine lawyers who worked at the Tomar law firm, bringing an end to years-old misconduct claims against the now-defunct group.

Judges put three other one-time Tomar lawyers on probation.

As early as the 1960s, the Cherry Hill firm known as Tomar O'Brien Kaplan Jacoby and Graziano allowed its non-attorney employees -- such as secretaries and paralegal assistants -- to receive bonuses for referring cases to the business, attorneys with the firm said.

The state banished that practice by the late 1990s, allowing only trained, educated lawyers to receive financial incentives for identifying potential clients and referring them to their respective firms.

But whether Tomar continued to allow referral-based bonuses for other workers remained a question, according to court documents and attorneys with ties to the firm. The state Disciplinary Review Board started looking into the matter roughly eight years ago, after the firm, in a separate matter, voluntarily reported account problems, Chatham attorney Kevin Marino said.

Marino represents Ronald A. Graziano, who was managing partner at Tomar before it disbanded in 2003. The group specialized in labor law.

"At the time the firm engaged (in the bonus policy), it was not abundantly clear that it was an improper practice by any means," Marino said. "Now the court has cleared up" any ambiguity.

The reprimanded attorneys are Cynthia Ann Brassington, David T. Jacoby, Robert F. O'Brien, Alan H. Sklarsky, Robert M. Capuano, Howard S. Simonoff, Edward N. Adourian Jr., Alfred P. Vitarelli and Charles L. Winne, according to an order handed down Wednesday by the state Supreme Court.

The Disciplinary Review Board had suggested to the court that the Tomar firm be censured and that three attorneys -- Michael A. Kaplan, Charles H. Riley and Graziano -- serve short-term suspensions from the practice of law.

In the order, the court agreed that the misconduct of Kaplan, Graziano and Riley warranted suspensions. But because of "the extraordinary delay" in the case, along with their "otherwise-unblemished careers . . . and their exemplary service to the community," the court declined to impose suspensions.

Instead, it put Kaplan and Graziano on a yearlong probation term. Riley will spend six months on probation.

Also, each attorney named in the matter will reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs and disciplinary expenses, according to the order. It notes that the court found no complaints lodged against the Tomar firm.

Capuano, a former Tomar lawyer from Marlton, said the ethics rules for bonuses are valid.

"It's mainly to protect the public," he said.

At the Tomar firm, though, the more liberal approach to bonuses did no harm to the public welfare, he said. Capuano said the firm acted with no ill intentions.

Marino, the attorney representing Graziano, said his client "is very pleased with the resolution."

"This was an extraordinarily long and arduous process," Marino said. "It's regrettable that so much of the past decade has been consumed with fighting these charges."

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, John E. Wallace Jr., Roberto A. Rivera-Soto and Helen E. Hoens joined in the order. Justice Barry T. Albin did not participate, according to the order.

Neither the judges nor the Disciplinary Review Board members normally comment to the press on such matters, a court spokeswoman said. (Source>>>)


ParalegalGateway's Weblog Posted by ParaGate at 12:57 PM in Other (Not Listed), Business

comments, Post A Comment!
Shaina Posted 12/17/2008 5:54 PM
Wow
Wow I can't believe it. I understand that perhaps there was an unclear perspective that this might have seemed unethical perhaps office staff practising law but on the other hand the staff did the correct thing, refering people that need help to the proper authority to give them advice and should'nt that be considered a private matter pertaining to the business? All of this seems fuzzy to me.

submit an article >>

latest articles
Showing Articles 1 - 5 of 26
First | Previous | Next | Last
ParalegalGate...
(0 comments)
ParalegalGateway is proud to announce the selection of our 2010 Paralegal Superstars. After receiving well over one-hundred nominations these final...
New Partner S...
(0 comments)
ParalegalGateway is proud to welcome our new Partner Sponsor, Esquire (an Alexander Gallo Company). Offering Deposition Services, Staffing Solution...
Free Seminar ...
(0 comments)
Merrill Corporation in partnership with ParalegalGateway presents, "Anatomy of E-Discovery", a free seminar for litigation professionals covering: ...
New Partner S...
(0 comments)
ParalegalGateway is proud to welcome our new Partner Sponsor the Institute for Paralegal Education (IPE). For almost 15 years, IPE has provided lega...
ParalegalGate...
(0 comments)
If you would like to read it via the internet, please follow this link: http://bit.ly/ZjtNW
Showing Articles 1 - 5 of 26
First | Previous | Next | Last
article archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
article categories
Business
Educational
Entertainment/Art
Other (Not Listed)
Sponsors
Cultures/Communities
Political
Sciences
Paralegal
recent article comments
DaHlflwyr on ParalegalGateway.com's Fi...
Shaina on Lawyers Reprimanded for P...
Bebe on MyParalegalSpace
MarieW on A Big Announcement
lawbug on Paralegal Gets 16-Month S...