of the Office of Attorney Ethics. �� may it please the Court,
Michael L Testa. THE COURT: And that's Mr. Long with you.
�� yes. THE COURT: You also will have the opportunity
to address the Court much Ms. Horton. �� may it please the Court,
this motion is a motion for final discipline follow the dis VIKT of New
Jersey to 1 count of tax evasion. 4 members of the disciplinary review bar voted
to dis bar, 2 members voted for a 3-year suspension. The Office of Attorney
Ethics acknowledges that this is a close and unfortunate case however
on balance. The O A E has determined that the position taken by the majority
of the D R B that responded should be disbarred is justified. The O
A E focuses in particular on a few factors that favor dis BARMENT. The first
factor is respondent status as an elected official during the time
frame underlying the criminal conduct much as such he not only had a higher obligation
to satisfy his tax liability but as a county Freeholder he would have
known that the FWOFT's local state and federal rely upon tax income to fund all
the NIS services for the residents much the second factor is respondent's
particular use of his bookkeeper Ms. Redmond as a confederate to his crime, responding
to hidden come by such as 2 wigs for his children, utilities for his permit
residence and student loan payments as business expenditures by doing respondent
implicated his his boom keeper putting her reputation and potentially for
his personal financial gain. The sentencing court as well as the D R B and thousand
the O A E has expressed concern that respondent may have manipulated his less
sophisticated subordinate in his crimes by asking her. THE COURT:
Has the O A E investigated that alleged manipulation. ��
I will say that there was a previous investigation that result in a reprimand
for some financial recordkeeping and I'm in the at liberty to discuss
any active investigations that may be going on. CHIEF JUSTICE STUART
RABNER: He was not investigated as PAFRT matter that led to the reprimand I
gather. �� well, I think on some level it was but it wasn't
perhaps the focus of that investigation,. That focused more on the nuts and bolts
of the problems with the recordkeeping. Not so much the relationship between
Ms. Redmond and respondent. In an additional FABT tore, moving
on from Ms. Redmond is that respondent engaged in tax fraud following
the attend distance speaking of the repry mapped, he was required it attend a
trust and business accounting course that was sponsored by the Office of
Attorney Ethics and the tax evasion subject before us today was after that course.
However that course should have served to high height the importance of SKUP
will you say business accounting practice and recordkeeping. The
sentencing court and the D R B correctly concluded that respondent's crime evidenced
a pattern of dishonest conduct that existed over a long period of time
and was used to manipulate the finance DZ the of the law firm to personally benefit
the respondent who simply MROOEFD that he paid too much in tax and didn't
have any other ren to justify his conduct. The crime was motivated by greed and
some TIBLG form of need for himself and his family,; that the financial crime
in TKS particular tax crime undermines the public's faith M DPOFT and
destroys the voluntary the nature, the unique VOL unteary nature of our tax system
and seemingly who are willing to M nip late system for selfish benefit
much the tax laws here was calculated at 388362 which is an amount greater than
the attorney's general discussed in the D R B and my brief that were
previously suspended for tax ea ration but not quite as great as some of the
tax laws caused by some of the disbarred attorneys who as you read the D R B
decision oven a million dollars of tax laws for those respondents of the restitution
was paid at sentencing. And even balancing ROEPT's unselfish acts of personal
charity and his more public acts of political goodwill against his
motivation which SEMS to be greed to violate the federal tax law the O A E
determined that the majority recommendation that respondent be
disbarred is INTOUPD we would join in that recommendation before the Court. If
there's no further questions I will submit on the record established
below. THE COURT: I have 1 question if you could just wait.
�� yeah. There's an allegation contained in the report in the
federal report which is disputed that Mr. Long pressured his bookkeeper to lie
and take blame. Is that accurate. �� well that is certainly
-- THE COURT: Is that in the PSR. �� yes that
exists in the PSR but I should say for completeness as you read the sentencing
transcript it is quite strongly disputed by defendant's counsel.
THE COURT: Indeed. Indeed. And it remains a disputed allegation.
�� it does. THE COURT: Questions?. Thank you. Counsel.
�� thank you, may it please the Court. I guess I would hike to start before
I get into some of the factual background here which really isn't
greaterly disputed except for the 1 fact that chief justice you referred to and
that is something in the sentencing memorandum that talks about the bookkeeper
being coerced by Mr. Long. That was adamently disputed, vehementally
oppose interested there are no facts within the record to support that allegation.
It was an allegation and that's important for 2 reasons of the 1
it's been referred to by the O A E specially if their most recent letter where
they changed their position and indicate that rather than recommending the 3-year
suspension retroactive to the date that my client voluntarily surrendered
his license in May of 2020, but they use the fact that the D R B RIFRD to andity
not a fact, they used the portion of the D R B decision where there is
a reference to the bookkeeper being coerced. The D R B relied upon that as 1
of the factors. The O A E relied upon that as 1 of the factors for reversing
their position in their letter I this it's .2 of their letter. There is
no evidence in the record of that. There's no statement from the bookkeeper.
There's no affidavit from the bookkeeper. There's no testimony
from the bookkeeper to that effect. The other factor relied upon by
Ms. Horton in reversing their position that a 3-year suspension would be
adequate, again, retroactive to May of 2020 was that my client was an elected
official which he was an owe elected official. I think during at least part
of the time that the tax evasion is alleged to have occurred and that
was 2012, 2013, and 2015 so we're talking several years ago that this was alleged
to have occurred and my client admitted to his guilt in in federal court
to the 1 count of tax evasion. But your Honors the fact that he was
an elected official, the fact that he was an elected official was known
to the O A E at the time they made the representation to in their brief to the
D R B. Is the appropriate discipline and not only would be the appropriate
discipline for MOI client's conduct but also would be sufficient to ensure that
the public would maintain its trust in the judicial system and the legal
system. THE COURT: May you ask you a question going back
to the first point. �� certainly. THE COURT:
I happen to agree that we should not rely on a disputed fact to which there is
no evidence and to finding in the record. There's no hearing there's
no finding by the D R B but it's a very serious allegation and it goes to the
matter that is in front of us. Well, it seems unlikely that there would have
been a reprimand in the 2016 matter had that been known, had that been found of the
my question is should we direct the O A E to conduct an expeditious
investigation into the matter and hold this so that we can resolve it? It may
resolve in your client's favor and it may not and it strikes me as a relevant
and serious matter that we shouldn't just ignore. Your
thoughts. �� well, my thoughts are and I think Ms. Horton
refers to this, that that probably FSHGS and I wasn't there, I wasn't part of
that investigation shall I didn't represent Mr. Long at that particular ethics
hearing but my understanding is that the bookkeeper was questioned with
respect to some improprieties in the bookkeeping that she admitted that will she
had made mistakes, that there were errors committed by her and never
once made any reference to the fact that she did this the that as a result of
some type of coercion on the part of Mr. Long. THE COURT:
Again, that happened later. She told the F.B.I. something DFRNTly at a later
period of time? �� that's what seeps to be in the sentencing
memo, yes. But there was no affidavit to that effect. THE COURT:
Should we try to get to the bottom of this before resolving this matter that is
in front of us now? �� well, here's the troubling thing.
I find it troubling number 1, that the O A E reversed their position
and I under that the decision is going to be the Supreme Court's decision, whether
the O A E said let's just give him a reprimand or give him disbarment,
ultimately it's your decision to make but what changed from the time that the
O A E presented their brief to the D R B until last week when the letter came
that they were changing their position. Nothing. The case law hasn't
changed. There isn't new precedent that has been established by a decision of
this court of the we look at G, we lock at Klein, we look at rich all cited
in the briefs. Even the O A E relied on got Tess man and Klein and Klein
was a case where there was an individual who pled guilty to tax evasion and in
addition to pleading guilty to tax evasion entered a plea of guilty
to a criminal conspiracy champ and 1 of the aggravating factors at that point
in time was that Mr. Klein failed to even alert that the O A E that he
was under indictment which we don't have here. My client was form right. As soon as
he got charged, as soon as he was indicted he advised the O A E. He
voluntarily surrendered his license and he complied. So my concern with that,
chief justice, would be that we're just delaying this even more so when he has been
suspended now for just about 3 years. It was May of 2020. So I don't know
what an expedited proceeding would because here we're talking about things that
go back to 2012 so we're already 11 years back in time. So I would
respectfully submit that a decision should be made on this case and if there's
another case coming down the road OOM sure that the O A E is going to be
following up on that. In any event, my client was admitted to the
bar in 1999 . At the time of sentencing, several individuals wrote letters.
Several individuals appeared at the time of sentencing talking about the good
deeds that Mr. Long did in the course of the practice of law and 1 of them
talked about they had a charity they founded for children and she testified before
judge Hillman that he was there. He represented that charity pro bono
and I know that lawyers do pro bono work because wore required to do it but he
went above and beyond the 1 year, 1 assignment that are given to
attorneys are, or 2 assignments that they get, he represented a charitable foundation
on a pro bono basis to help them raise money to assist children in need of
money. You see something in the record to helping someone get a wheelchair. You
saw Mr. Todd Edwards who testified before judge Hillman as to the chart
charitable acts that my client was doing at the time for the N NAACP and some
other organizes so there are mitigating factors of the judge Hillman found that
those mitigating factors were sufficient for him to did he art from
the sentencing guidelines in the federal court and he did so. He departed to
those guidelines. But nontheless my client was sentenced to 14 months in
prison. He paid his penalty for that so yes, we know that discipline is partially
punitive. Although that shot not be the MAP goal as the cases say, that we
should be more aware of trying to ensure the public trust in this system but I
MIT to you after that many years of practice, the charitable good deeds he's
done, the law practice he remained, being an elective official I know
it cut against him with respect to his position of trust with the public, but
his conduct in evading taxes had nothing to do with his position as an
elected official and it had nothing to do with his position as an attorney. This is
a crime that could just as easily been committed by someone who runs a
pizzeria as opposed to being a practicing attorney. It wasn't client money.
Clients were not harmed. In fact, you see nothing in the record about clients
complaining about the representation that was provided by Mr. Long. I
just submit that the 3-year suspension that the Court imposed in the got Tess
man and the Klein cases and the rich case are the appropriate penalty here and I
respectfully submit that he should be returned to the practice of law.
Let him get on doing the good deeds that he did in the past. Let him get on being
a contributing member of society, a contributing member of the legal
profession. He's learned his lesson. God knows what he's been through over the
past several years. You can all imagine that something like this must
have had on himself and his family and those close to close to him.
I think when you look at the case law and you look at the crime and the
allocution that my client presented to judge Hillman in the federal court, you
will come to the conclusion that 3 years is more than sufficient and
I respectfully ask that that be retroactive to when he voluntarily is your
rendered his license in May of 2020. THE COURT: Questions
anyone?. Thank you. Would you like to consult your client and see if he
wants to address the Court? �� he will be addressing the Court, chief
justice. �� thank you, thank you for allowing me to
speak today and I made a huge mistake much I knew that the books were bad. I knew
that it was pretrial at this much in my benefit. I knew that I should have done
something about it. I didn't. You know, the attorney for the O A E mentioned
greed. I'm in the sure it was greed. I've done over 250 pro bono cases in my
career. I'm happy to help of the I think it was more arrogance and me
thinking that I was better than everybody else and, you know, it was a huge mistake
and I really, I apologize for that. I apologize for take your time today.
I'm embarrassed. I'm mortified. Mortified for my family, my kids. You know I
always said my farther was the greatest man he ever met. He's passed but that will
never change. I've always wanted that for my kids and that's really
not happening right now. Their father went to prison for a crime that he readily
admits that he committed and, you know, I'd like to continue to practice
law because I enjoy it. Its an honor, it's a privilege. I think I'm fairly decent
at it but I also like to continue to practice law so that I can start to
rebuild my kids's self esteem and belief in their father. It's got to be devastating
to them and I really like to start working to earn that back. For them. So
they can walk around with their heads held high. Thank you for your time.
Appreciate it. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Horton, can you come
back to the center much I just have a couple of questions. The question that
I raised, it's a straightforward allegation that involves perhaps 2
witness and quite likely not much else, not much documentation. How long would
it take the O A E, I'm in the asking you to tell us anything that you're in the
at liberty to discuss, but how long would it take to conduct that
investigation. �� well I think some of the allegations involve
F.B.I. agents so I think that can be kind of Koch Kating factor not so much calling
Ms. Redmond and bringing her in for an interview so I feel very
uncomfortable answering that. I just don't know. THE COURT: How long
would it take for the O A E to conduct the investigation without the F.B.I.'s
cooperation. �� I mean I shouldn't think that that would
be, you know, very complicated. It would probably be akin to months,
you know. THE COURT: And at the end of a preliminary
investigation you would be in a position either to proceed or to tell us that
you will not be proceeding. �� I mean I suppose we could do that.
That's not our practice generally speaking but of course if that was
the request we could do so. THE COURT: Thank you. Is there anything
you wanted to add on that point. User welcome to the come to the center
if you do. �� yes I do. Thank for the opportunity. I think.
Thank you for your candor, Ms. Horton. I think that enunciates my concern because
we done have any control over that time line and this could just go on for
months and months and months. And. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE LEE A. SOLOMON:
Well, we have control. �� not over their time line.
THE COURT: It's a valid concern. That's why we ask. ��
well if there's some control over that time line I take back that statement.
I didn't think there would be that kind of control over them conducting
the investigation and whether the F.B.I. is going to have to get involved or
not much there's a lot of what ifs. Somebody at a higher pay rate than me has
those answered. THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.
�� thank you. THE COURT:^ we'll take the matter under
advisement