CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MAY WE PLEASE HAVE APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL.
(APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL ENTERED.) CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: MR. SPARK,
AS YOU'VE HEARD MOMENTS AGO YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IF YOU'D LIKE TO
ADDRESS THE COURT AT THE END OF THE PROCEEDINGS. MS. HORTON.
HILLARY HORTON: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. THIS MATTER IS BEFORE
YOU FILING A MOTION FOR FINAL DISCIPLINE WHERE FOUR MEMBERS OF THE DISCIPLINARY
REVIEW BOARD VOTED FOR A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION, THREE MEMBERS VOTED FOR
DISBARMENT AND ONE MEMBER VOTED FOR A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION. THE OAE MAINTAINS THAT
THE THREE YEAR SUSPENSION, THE FINAL DISCIPLINE THAT IT RECOMMENDED BEFORE
THE BOARD ARGUMENT IS APPROPRIATE. THE FACTS ARE PROPERLY AND FULLY ELUCIDATED
ON PAGES 3 THROUGH NINE OF THE DRB DECISION AND NOT SUR SURPRISINGLY
THERE ARE NO CASE ON ALL FOURS WITH THIS MATTER IS ITS UNIQUE SUBJECT MATTER. HOWEVER
THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS AGREES WITH THE DISCIPLINARY CREW BOARD THAT
IN RE CAPLAN, 227 N.J. 224 FROM 2016 PROVIDES STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE IMPOSITION
OF A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION. CAPLAN LEFT RESH RAGING HIS ATTORNEY STATUS
TO SMUGGLE CANNABIS AND TOBACCO INTO A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WAS PAID 500 DOLLARS
CASH. MONEY HE NEEDED SINCE HIS WIFE'S BREAST CANCER SPREAD TO HER BONES
CAUSING CAPLAN TO MAKE COSTLY RENOVATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE HIS WIFE'S NEEDS AT THAT POINT
AND HIS SON DURING THE SAME TIME PERIOD HAD DEVELOPED AN ADDICTION TO COCAINE
WHICH CAUSED HIM TO STEAL FROM THE FAMILY AND RACK UP TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CREDIT CARD
DEBT IN HIS FATHER'S NAME. THE COURT TAKING ALL THESE FACTS INTO
CONSIDERATION IMPOSED A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION IN THAT MATTER. THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY
ETHICS HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF THE OTHER DECISIONS ON THIS
MATTER WHERE THE RESPONDENT IS THERE IN THOSE CASES WERE CENSURED FOR BRINGING FIREARMS
INTO COURTHOUSES AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE THREE YEAR SUSPENSION REMAINS
SOUND AND THAT ALTHOUGH DAILY AND THE OTHER CASE WERE CENSURED THAT THE SITUATION
HERE IS SUFFICIENTLY DIFFERENT THAT THE THREE YEAR SUSPENSION REMAINS THE
PROPER QUANTUM OF DISCIPLINE. HERE, THE RESPONDENT USED AND ABUSED HIS POSITION
TO GAIN ACCESS TO SECURE ATTORNEY CLIENT VISITATIONS ROOMS THAT WOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO OTHER VISITORS. ALSO, A PRISON IS AN EVEN MORE HIGHLY REGULATED
AND CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT THAN A COURTHOUSE. THAT THE CONDUCT INVOLVED
IN THE INSTANT MATTER WAS SEXUAL FOR GRATIFICATION AND THE RESPONDENT'S KUNTH WAS
INTENTIONAL IN THAT THEY DIDN'T PLAN TO BRING THE FIREARMS TO THE USE AND
THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PURPOSE FOR BRINGING THEM THERE THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN JUST
THE MERE FACT OF HAVING KNOWING POSSESSION OF THEM AT THE TIME AT THE TIME
IN WHICH THEY WENT THROUGH METAL DETECTORS. THE OTHER
FACTOR IS THAT DESPITE PROTESTATIONS TO THE CONTRARY AN INMATE POPULATION BY
DEFINITION IS VULNERABLE. THE RESPONDENT WAS DISBARRED IN FLORIDA AND NEW YORK
FOR HIS CONDUCT. THAT IS NOT PERMANENT IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS THAT WOULD BE IN
LINE WITH THE DISCIPLINE BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE OAE IN THIS CASE. FURTHER
THE OAE NETS THAT THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE DRB IN THEIR DECISION ARE
APPROPRIATE THAT PRIOR TO REINSTATEMENT RESPONDENT -- THAT FOLLOWING
REINSTATEMENT HE FOLLOW QUARTERLY REPORTS DOCUMENTING CONTINUED PSYCHOLOGICAL
COUNSELING FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AND UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT
THAT THOSE CONDITIONS ARE ALSO APPROPRIATE. SO UNLESS THERE'S FURTHER
QUESTIONS OF ME ON THIS MATTER WE WILL SUBMIT BASED UPON THE RECORD BELOW.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IS THERE ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD THAT IS RELEVANT HERE? HILLARY HORTON: MEDICAL EVIDENCE?
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?
HILLARY HORTON: BEYOND THAT HE IS BEING TREATED FOR A SEX ADDICTION. I MEAN
THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT HE HAS BEEN PROACTIVE IN OBTAINING THE
PROPER TREATMENT. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: FOR HOW LONG A PERIOD
OF TIME? HILLARY HORTON: I BELIEVE HE ENTERED TREATMENT EVEN
PRIOR TO HIS SENTENCING IN FLORIDA. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: YOU SAID
THAT THE DISBAR ELEMENTS ARE ON PAR WITH A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: FLORIDA IS HOW MANY YEARS, SEVEN?
HILLARY HORTON: NEW YORK IS SEVEN, YES, SIR. AND FLORIDA IS FIVE. HE WAS DISBARRED
IN FLORIDA ON JANUARY 21ST OF 2021 BUT IT WAS SET RETROACTIVELY BACK TO
JULY 15TH OF 2019. SO HE COULD BE APPLY FOR RESTATEMENT AS EARLY AS AUGUST 15
TH OF 2024. AND IN NEW YORK HE WAS DISBARRED BECAUSE THAT FOLLOWED AFTER
FLORIDA AS A MOTION FOR RECIPROCAL. HAD COULD BE REINSTATED OR APPLY FOR REINSTATEMENT
AS SOON AS JULY 1ST OF 2028. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: SO THOSE
ARE SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER RESPONSES THAN THE ONE THE OAE IS ASKING FOR IN
THIS CASE. THE SPEAKER: WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO RUN HIS
SUSPENSION RETROACTIVE TO. BECAUSE HE WAS NOT SNEND IN NEW JERSEY. I GUESS MY ARGUMENT
WAS IT'S MORE NOW BECAUSE MAYBE THE FLORIDA -- IT WILL BE KIND OF IN
BETWEEN THE TWO HE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE HERE. JUSTICE PATTERSON:
WELL, I THINK WHEN YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THE YEARS HE HAS LEFT ON THOSE TWO
DISBAR ELEMENTS ARE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT THE OAE IS RECOMMENDING.
HILLARY HORTON: IF WE HAVE TIME TO EXPLAIN THE DATES, YEAH, IN THIS MATTER.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: QUESTIONS, ANYONE? THANK YOU. TERI S.
LODGE: GOOD AFTERNOON. I THINK THIS CASE PRESENTS A CHALLENGE TO THE COURT BECAUSE
THE FACTS ARE LURE RID. THE FACTS ARE NASTY AND THEY'RE NOT NICE AND WE
NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS THAT THE LEVELED OF DISCIPLINE IS BASED ON THE LEVEL OF
MISCONDUCT AND THE LEVEL OF CRIMINALITY AND NOT ON A VISCERAL REACT.
UNFORTUNATELY THIS COURT AS A HISTORY OF NOT REACTING IN CASES LIKE THIS AND A FEW
CASES I'M GOING TO DISCUSS AND I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT. THE CONDUCT
HERE WAS USING CREDENTIALS, LAWYER CREDENTIALS TO SEE FRIENDS ARRAIGN CLIENTS IN
A JAIL WHICH IS AN ABUSE OF THAT PRIVILEGE. ALSO MAKING INAPPROPRIATE
VIDEOS WITH THOSE FRIENDS IN THE GENTLEMAN I WOULD AND BRINGING THEM OUT. AS MS.
HORTON SAID THERE IS NOT A CASE LIKE THIS IN NEW JERSEY AND THAT'S BECAUSE
USUALLY A CASE OF THIS SORT WOULD GET TO THIS COURT BECAUSE A LAWYER LEFT ITEMS
IN A JAIL RATHER THAN BRINGING SOMETHING OUT OF A JAIL. OR SIMPLY USING THEIR
CREDENTIALS TO SEE A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER IN THE JAIL WHICH I'M SURE HAS HAPPENED
BUT IT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF MISCONDUCT THAT WOULD BRING IT TO THIS
COURT. IT WOULD RISE FROM A REQUEST FROM THE JAIL NOT TO DO THAT AGAIN. AND OF COURSE
THE CASE THAT HAS TO DO WITH BRINGING ITEMS INTO THE JAIL AND THE CASE WHICH
RESULTED IN A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION BUT WAS FAR MORE SERIOUS AND INVOLVED BRINGING
DRUGS, DRUGS INTO A JAIL. NOW CAPONE HAS BEEN REFERENCED BY THE
BOARD AS ANALOGOUS AND BY THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY ETHICS AS ANALOGOUS BUT
THAT REALLY IS ONLY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A CASE IN NEW JERSEY THAT IS ANALOGOUS.
I'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR JUST A MOMENT ABOUT WHY CAPONE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS
CASE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: BEFORE WE GET TO OTHER CASES.
TERI S. LODGE: YES, YOUR HONOR. CHIEF JUSTICE
RABNER: I JUST WILL A QUESTION ABOUT THIS CASE BECAUSE LIKE YOUR RESPONSE TO
THIS THIS IS MORE THAN SIMPLY BRINGING SOMETHING INTO JAIL OR USING ONE'S STATUS
IN AN INAPPROPRIATE MANNER. IT'S THE COERCIVENESS AND THE BEHAVIOR IF I UNDERSTAND
CORRECTLY. YOUR CLIENT CAUSED THESE WOMAN TO SIGN A DOCUMENT INDICATING
HOW APPRECIATIVE THAT THEY WERE AND SUBJECTING THEMSELVES TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
OF A MILLION DOLLARS. THIS IS VERY VERY PROBLEMATIC CONDUCT ALL THROUGHOUT.
AND IT'S BEHAVIOR, IT'S NOT JUST THE LURE RID NATURE. IT'S THE CONDUCT THAT I'M
REFERRING TO. TERI S. LODGE: SO THE CONTRACT, YOUR HONOR,
THAT'S AN INTERESTING ISSUE. BECAUSE IN THIS CASE MY CLIENT PLED GUILTY TO
PROSTITUTION, TO SOLICITING PROSTITUTION AND THE GUILTY PLEA IS CONCLUSIVE
PROOF FOR THIS COURT BUT, IN FACT, IT'S NOT REALLY PROSTITUTION. IT'S REALLY THE
MAKING OF THE PORNOGRAPHY AND THAT WAS THE INTENT AND THE MAKING OF PORNOGRAPHY
WITH A CONSENSUAL ARRANGEMENT AND WITH PAYMENT IS NOT PROSTITUTION. THE CONTRACT
THAT YOUR HONOR REFERENCES WAS A CONTRACT FOR THE MAKING OF PORNOGRAPHY.
THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE THE WOMEN WERE TO ACT APPRECIATIVE IT WAS
SORT OF A SCRIPT FOR THE VIDEO. SO WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS CASE AS IF
IT'S PORNOGRAPHY BECAUSE MY CLIENT PLED GUILTY TO PROSTITUTION. BUT, IN FACT,
PROSTITUTION WASN'T REALLY THE CHARGE. PORNOGRAPHY IS LEGAL AND PROSTITUTION
ENDED UP BEING THE CHARGE THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA LEVIED THAT MY CLIENT
PLED GUILTY TO SO THAT'S CONCLUSIVE. AS TO THE COERCIVENESS
THESE WERE FRIENDS OF MY CLIENT, THEY WERE PEOPLE HE KNEW FROM HIS PAST, PEOPLE
HE KNEW FROM HIS PRESENTS AT THAT POINT. THEY WERE PEOPLE HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP
WITH. THEY WERE CONSENTING INFORMED ADULTS. MY CLIENT SPOKE TO THEM ON
THE TELEPHONE BEFORE HE WENT AND THEY MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THIS. SO THIS WASN'T
A SITUATION WHERE HE SHOWED UP IN THE JAIL AND COERCED THEM OR MANIPULATED THEM
IN SOME WAY WHEN HE GOT THERE. THIS WAS AN ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN CONSENTING
ADULTS. IT WASN'T LEGAL BECAUSE THEY WERE IN PRISON. BUT WASN'T MORE COERCIVE
BECAUSE OF THAT. . CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HE PAID THEM TEN
DOLLARS EACH FOR THIS. TERI S. LODGE: THAT WAS THE ALLEGATION
REGARDING THE PROSTITUTION CHARGE. FAB DOESN'T HE ALLOCUTE TO THAT.
TERI S. LODGE: THAT'S SORT OF THE PROBLEM I'M HAVING BECAUSE THE
CONVICTION IS CONCLUSIVE PROOF FOR THIS COURT. I DIDN'T COME HERE OBVIOUSLY TO
TELL THIS COURT THERE WAS NO PROSTITUTION. JUSTICE FABIANA
PIERRE-LOUIS: I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING -- I'M JUST, YOU'RE MAKING THIS ARGUMENT THAT
THAT WASN'T REALLY WHAT HAPPENED AND THAT WASN'T THE REAL CHARGE BUT HE STOOD BEFORE
THE COURT AND AGREED TO THE PLEA ALLOCUTION THAT INDICATED THAT HE
EXCHANGE FOR SEXUAL FAVORS PLACED MONEY IF THESE WOMEN ALSO COMMISSARY ACCOUNTS; ISN'T
THAT CORRECT? TERI S. LODGE: HE DID. BUT THAT WAS IN THE
CONTEXT OF AN ALLOCUTION FOR A GUILTY PLEA TO PROSTITUTION AND I'M NOT SAYING MY
CLIENT SHOULDN'T HAVE PLED GUILTY, I CAN'T SAY THAT. AND ON CERTAINLY HIS
CONDUCT, PEOPLE PLED TO OTHER THINGS, TOO. HE PLED GUILTY TO HAVING THE VIDEOTAPE.
BUT BECAUSE THE COURT RAISED THE QUESTION ABOUT THIS CONTRACT I HAVE TO ADDRESS
IT AND THE CONTRACT WAS FOR PORNOGRAPHY, WHICH IS LEGAL AND AGAIN WHICH OUTSIDE
OF THE JAIL WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. IT BECOMES ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT.
CASE AND I CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND NARROW THEM
DOWN TO JUST WHAT WAS ALLOCATED TO IN THE GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE THAT JUST BRING IT
DOWN TO THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE THAT IS BEING PLED GUILTY TO. I HOPE
THAT MAKES SENSE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: YES.
TERI S. LODGE: SO BACK TO CAPONE AND WHY IT DOES NOT APPLY. THE RATIONALE OF THE DRB
FOR CAPONE FOR RECOMMENDING THE SAME THREE YEAR SENSE THAT CAPONE GOT WAS
CAPONE DID THE SAME THING BUT HAD SIGNIFICANT MITIGATING FACTORS. BUT IT DID NOT
DO THE SAME THING AT ALL. CAPONE IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS. IN THREE YEARS, IF
THREE YEARS WAS APPROPRIATE FOR CAPONE I SUBMIT THE SUSPENSION HERE SHOULD BE
SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER. HE PLED GUILTY IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TO CONSPIRACY
FOR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE DRUGS AND SMUGGLE THEM INTO A JAIL
AND HE SERVED TIME IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR THAT. SMUGGLING DRUGS INTO A JAIL IS
FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. BECAUSE DRUGS IN A COUNTY
JAIL ARE NOT JUST AGAINST THE RULES WHICH WE HAVE IN THIS CASE AND THEY'RE NOT JUST
SUBSTANCES OF ABUSE. THEY'RE CURRENCY. THEY AFFECT THE HIERARCHY IN THE
JAIL. THEY'RE USED TO PERSON TRAIT OTHER KINDS OF CRIMES IN JAIL. THEY YOU BELIEVE
MINE THE WHOLE SYSTEM AND EVEN OUTSIDE OF A JAIL A CONVICTION IN FEDERAL COURT
FOR CONSPIRACY TO DISTRIBUTE DRUGS COULD RESULTED IN DISBARMENT. IN CONTRAST,
MR. SPARK'S ASK WOULD NOT BE A CRIME OUTSIDE OF THE JAIL AS WE JUST DISCUSSED.
HERE, MR. SPARK TOOK TWO VIDEOS OUT AND THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT HE ABUSED
HIS PRIVILEGE AS A LAWYER TO GAIN ACCESS IN A MORE PRIVATE WAY TO HIS CLIENTS AND
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THAT ERODES THE TRUST BETWEEN THE INSTITUTION AND
LAWYERS WHO NEED TO HAVE EASY AND PRIVATE ACCESS TO THEIR CLIENTS. BUT THAT REALLY
IS WHERE THE HARM ENDS IN THIS CASE. BECAUSE TO BE CLEAR AS I SAID A MOMENT
AGO, THESE WOMEN WERE WILLING PARTICIPANTS. THEY ARRANGED EVERYTHING OVER THE PHONE
WITH MR. SPARKS. HE HAD NO AUTHORITY OR CONTROL OVER THEM AT ALL. HE HAD TO
NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OVER THEM. THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF THEM. THEY WERE NOT
HIS LIEPTS AND THEY WERE HIS FRIENDS. SO WHILE CAPONE STARTS
UP HERE IN SERIOUSNESS AND THE SIGNIFICANT MITIGATING FACTORS BRING IT DOWN
TO THREE YEARS AND MITIGATING FACTORS ARE HEAVILY WEIGHED AND SHOULD BE IN DISCIPLINARY
PROCEEDINGS, MR. SPARKS'S MATTER STARTS NOT UP HERE BUT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER
IN SERIOUSNESS AND HE ALSO HAD SIGNIFICANT MITIGATING FACTORS WHICH WERE RECITE
BY THE DRB BUT REQUIRE MORE EMPHASIS. AND IF I COULD JUST GO OVER THOSE
MITIGATING FACTORS. MR. SPARKS SELF-REPORTED HIS CONDUCT IN NEW
YORK AND NEW JERSEY. HE RECOGNIZED HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND TOOK THEM
VERY SERIOUSLY. AS WAS STATED BY COUNSEL, HE STARTED HIS THERAPY AND HIS TREATMENT
BEFORE HE EVEN ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA IN FLORIDA. HE DID EVERYTHING HE COULD
TO RE REMEDIATE THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE. HE HAD SIGNIFICANT PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT.
HE SUBMITTED TWO PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS ONE OF WHICH DEALT IN DETAIL
WITH THE STRESSORS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THIS CONDUCT AND
HE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED PROBATION EARLY IN THIS CASE AND HE HAD MANY LETTERS
OF RECOMMENDATION, GLOWING LETTERS. HE'S 60 YEARS OLD WITH NO DISCIPLINARY HISTORY
OF ANY KIND. HE HAD BEEN BARRED SINCE 1991. HE A SUCCESSFUL CAREER.
ALTHOUGH HE HAS AN I WAS VEE LEAGUE EDUCATION HE SPENT A LOT OF HIS PRACTICE REPRESENTING
ORDINARY OFTEN UNDER PRIVILEGED PEOPLE AND FOR SEVEN YEARS HE WAS IN THE
PUBLIC SECTOR AS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL AND YOUR HONOR ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY MEDICAL
TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE AND, IN FACT, THERE'S A MEDICAL REPORT INDICATING
THAT THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT STRESSORS THAT ATTENUATED THE END OF MR. SPARKS'S JOB
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. HE STARTED HISTORIES PRIVATE PRACTICE
AND WAS ALSO WORKING FULL TIME IN THE TRAVELED INDUSTRY JOB SO HE WAS -- HE HAD
WAY TOO MUCH ON HIS PLATE PROFESSIONALLY AT THE SAME TIME HIS MOTHER WAS
DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER -- I'M SORRY, HIS FATHER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER AND PASSED.
HE HAD AN UNCLE WHO BECAME VERY ILL AND PASSED. SHE SUFFERS FROM ADHD ANXIETY
AND DEPRESSION. SO THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MITIGATING FACTORS
IN ADDITION TO THE SEX ADDICTION WHICH HE DEALT WITH IN A VERY SERIOUS WAY.
SO HE'S DONE EVERYTHING THAT HE COULD TO REMEDIATE THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THIS
CASE. AND IN THAT WAY THIS CASE IS MORE LIKE THE FAR CASE THAN THE CAPONE
CASE, FARR. THERE AS I KNOW THIS COURT IS AWARE A PROSECUTOR STOLE DRUGS FROM
AN EVIDENCE LOCKER AND MANIPULATED THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN PART
BECAUSE HE WAS INFATUATED WITH AN INFORMANT IN THIS CASE IN THAT CASE. AND THE COURT
FOUND AND I QUOTE THAT HE WAS AN ATTORNEY WHO LOST HIS ETHICAL COMPASS AND
BEEN WENT ASTRAY WITH ABERRATIONAL CONDUCT NOT LIKELY TO REOCCUR WHO FOUND HIS
BEARINGS THROUGH REHABILITATION AND PSYCHIATRIC COUNSELING. AND THAT CASE
RESULTED IN A SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION. THE FACTS WERE FAR MORE SERIOUS THAN THIS
CASE. THE MITIGATION WAS SIMILAR TO THIS CASE. THE RESULT SHOULD BE MORE
SIMILAR TO THE FAR CASE THAN THE CAPONE CASE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER:
COUNSEL, IS YOUR CLIENT PRACTICING -- LET ME START IS HE ELIGIBLE TO PRACTICE
NOW AND IN RECENT YEARS IN NEW JERSEY? TERI S. LODGE: HE WAS ELIGIBLE
TO PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY BUT HE'S BEEN LIVING IN NEW JERSEY.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: HAS HE PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY? TERI S.
LODGE: NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: DOES HE INTEND
TO PRACTICE IN NEW JERSEY? TERI S. LODGE: HE WOULD LIKE TO.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: IS HE BARRED ANYWHERE ELSE?
TERI S. LODGE: NO, OTHER THAN NEW YORK AND FLORIDA WHICH THE COURT IS AWARE
OF. I HAVE TO PICK UP MY PEN, YOUR HONOR. CHIEF
JUSTICE RABNER: SURE. TERI S. LODGE: I CAN'T TALK WITHOUT IT IN
MY HAND. SO IN THE RESPONDENT'S BRIEF THERE ARE MANY MORE
SERIOUS CRIMINAL CASES THAT HAVE RESULTED IN LESSER SANCTIONS AND OBVIOUSLY I'M
NOT GOING TO REVIEW ALL OF THEM. BUT ONE I'D LIKE TO REVIEW BECAUSE IT REALLY
DEMONSTRATES HOW A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION WOULD BE OUT OF LINE AND THAT'S {CASE CITED}.
THERE AN ATTORNEY HAD A DUI AND & A CONVICTION FOR A VERY SERIOUS
ANTI-SEMITIC COMMENTS AND TERRORISTIC DEATH THREATS OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND
AFTER THAT CONVICTION SHE SUSTAINED ANOTHER CONVICTION FOR SIMILAR CONDUCT
AND THE DRB NOTED THAT THE SECOND CONVICTION INDICATED THAT UNLIKE MR. SPARK IN
THAT CASE SHE HAD NOT DEALT WITH HER ISSUES AND OTHER THAN THAT THEY WOULD
HAVE RECOMMENDED A CENSURE. {CASE CITED} WAS IN PRACTICE FOR TEN YEARS, NOT 30
AS MR. SPARK HAS BEEN AND CLEARLY THERE WERE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IN THAT CASE
AS THERE ARE IN THIS CASE. SHE NEVER PRESENTED PROOF OF A DIAGNOSIS. SHE NEVER
PRESENTED TREATMENT OR PROGNOSIS. SHE WAS SUSPENDED FOR THREE MONTHS. IN
CONTRAST, MR. SPARK'S CONVICTION IS FOR RELATIVELY MINOR OFFENSES. HE WAS NEVER
VIOLENT OR THREATENING. HE HAS PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL PROOF OF REHABILITATION,
AND HIS DISCIPLINE SHOULD BE LESS THAN {CASE CITED} NOT ALMOST THREE YEARS
MORE. THE LAST CASE I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS WITH THE COURT
IS THE JACKSON CASE. IN RE JACKSON. BECAUSE THAT INVOLVED A MORE LURE RID TYPE
OF SITUATION. ALTHOUGH MUCH WORSE AGAIN THAN THIS CASE IN RE JACKSON INVOLVED
TWO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS FOR TAKING UP SKIRT PHOTOGRAPHS OF 55 WOMEN AND LIKE THIS
CASE IT RESULT IN DISBARMENT IN NEW YORK. SO THAT'S AN POFRNTS SIMILARITY.
BUT IN NEW JERSEY A ONE YEAR RETROACTIVE SUSPENSION WAS IMPOSED. LIKE MR. SPARK
MR. JACKSON ACKNOWLEDGED HIS CONDUCT. HE WAS VERY REMORSEFUL. HE ENGAGED
IN PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT INTR IN THAT CASE THE DRB AND THIS COURT NOTED NUMEROUS
LEWDNESS TYPE CONVICTIONS THAT RESULTED IN SHORT SUSPENSIONS AND THE COURT
NOTED MANY CASES OF A SEXUAL NATURE THAT RESULTED IN DISCIPLINE LESS THAN A SUSPENSION.
SO WHILE JACKSON LIKE MR. SPARK ACCEPTED FULL RESPONSIBILITY
AND ENGAGED INAPPROPRIATE PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT AS MR. SPARK DID, HIS FAR MORE
SERIOUS CONDUCT AND SIMILAR MITIGATION RESULTED IN A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION.
THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO IMPOSE A HARSHER DISCIPLINE ON MR. SPARK GIVEN THIS
30 YEARS AND HIS REHABILITATIVE EFFORTS AND THE CASE THAT THIS CASE DID
INVOLVE NO CONVICTION WHICH GOES BACK TO THE COURT'S QUESTION ABOUT WASN'T THAT
AN ELEMENT HERE AND THERE REALLY ARE NO VICTIMS IN THIS CASE. THE YOUNG
WOMEN WERE FRIENDS AND THEY HAVE CERTIFIED THAT THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE VICTIMS IN THE
CASE. FINALLY I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO THE DRB DECISION
JUST BRIEFLY I WOULD NOTE THAT THE DRB SAID THAT MR. SPARK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO
REPLY IN FLORIDA ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS HE WOULD IN NEW JERSEY WITH A THREE YEAR
SUSPENSION AND THIS GOES TO A QUESTION THAT YOUR HONOR ASKED MS. HORTON. THAT
WAS PART OF THEIR RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDING A THREE YEAR SUSPENSION.
BUT AS MS. HORTON SAID MR. SPARK IS GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE TO REPLY IN FLORIDA IN
AUGUST OF 2024. THAT SUPPORTS A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION THAN A THREE YEAR
SUSPENSION. IN THE DRB DECISION VICE CHAIR SINGER ALSO FINDINGS
WERE ON PAR. SHE RECOGNIZED THE MITIGATION. SHE RECOGNIZED THE LACK OF VICTIMS.
SHE DISTINGUISHED CAPONE AND SHE RECOMMENDED A ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION. MR.
SPARK HAS ASKED ME TO NOTE THAT VICE CHAIR SINGER DID STATE THAT THERE WERE
MISREPRESENTATIONS. MR. SPARK GOING INTO THE JAIL TO SEE CLIENTS, SHOWING HIS
ATTORNEY ID. MR. SPARK DOES WISH THE COURT TO KNOW HE NEVER AFFIRMATIVELY
SAID HE WAS THERE TO SEE CLIENTS BUT HE DOES RECOGNIZE THAT AN ASSUMPTION WOULD
HAVE BEEN MADE AND THAT'S IN HIS CERTIFICATION THAT'S BEEN PRESENT TO
THE COURT. THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO THOUGHT THAT MORE SERIOUS
SANCTIONS OUGHT TO BE IMPOSED THOUGHT THAT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THE WOMEN WERE
VULNERABLE AND I DISPUTE THAT AND BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SEXUAL
ASSAULT HERE BUT OUR CRIMINAL STATUTES ARE VERY CLEAR THERE'S NO ASSAULT HERE BECAUSE
THERE WAS NO SUPERVISOR READ -- THEY HAPPENED TO BE WOMEN WHO WERE
INCARCERATED BUT MR. SPARK WASN'T PART OF THAT PROCESS. FINALLY THE
WOMEN WERE NOT IN MORE DANGER OR MORE VULNERABLE BECAUSE THIS WAS AN UNMONITORED
ROOM. WHILE IT WAS A MORE PRIVATE ROOM THAN PUBLIC AREAS IN THE JAIL AND
THAT'S WHAT ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN THE FACT THAT MR. SPARK DID ACCESS THAT ROOM,
LAWYER CONFERENCE ROOMS ARE NOT UNMONITORED IN ANY JAIL. LAWYERS
WOULDN'T BE SAFE IF LAWYER INFERENCE WERE UNMONEY TORTD. MONITORED EITHER BY WINDOW
OR BY VIDEOS AND MR. SPARK ALSO CERTIFICATION SAYS THERE WERE WINDOWS
IN THE ROOM IN THIS CASE. THESE WOMEN WERE CERTAINLY NOT IN DANGER, EXTRA DANGER
BECAUSE THEY WERE IN THIS ROOM. AT THE END OF THE DAY THIS IS
A LAWYER WHO USED HIS CREDENTIALS TO GAIN ACCESS TO A MORE PRIVATE LOCATION
TO SHARE INAPPROPRIATE CONTACT WITH TWO FRIENDS AND IT REALLY IS NOT MORE THAN
THAT. LOOKING AT THOSE FACTS AND COMPARED TO OTHER CASES A CENSURE OR A SHORT
SUSPENSION IS APPROPRIATE. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: QUESTIONS, ANYONE?
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: DID YOU WANT TO CONSULT WITH MR. SPARKS.
TERI S. LODGE: HE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT, YOUR HONOR.
MR. SPARK: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. FIRST I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND I'M SORRY THAT
YOUR TIME HAS HAD TO BE USED FOR MY CONDUCT WHICH WAS IMPROPER CLEARLY.
I'M EXTREMELY REMORSEFUL FOR MY CONDUCT. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. MY
CONDUCT REFLECTS A TERRIBLE JUDGMENT AND I SAID TAKE OWNERSHIP WITH THAT
AND I LIVE MY LIFE A LOT MORE CAREFULLY THAN I DID FIVE AND-A-HALF YEARS AGO.
I BETTER APPRECIATE NOW HOW MY ACTION CLOSE HAVE CAUSED TANGIBLE HARM BOTH
TO ACCESS THE JUSTICE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. YOU KNOW, THAT HAD MORE
STRINGENT SECURITY MEASURES BEEN PUT IN PLACE WHICH WAS A CONCERN AND IN OTHER WAYS.
I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT REALLY BEFOREHAND AND THAT'S ON ME.
THE CONDUCT IS NOT GOING TO REOCCUR. I'VE BEEN IN THERAPY. I'VE WORKED HARD
TO LEARN WHY I USED SUCH POOR JUDGMENT AND ACTED THE WAY I DID AND I'VE GAINED
INCITE INTO THAT CONDUCT THROUGH THE THERAPY AS WELL AS JUST THINKING ABOUT IT
WHEN NOT IN THERAPY. I'M DEEPLY ASHAMED BY MY MISCONDUCT AND THE WAY IT'S
AFFECTED MY FAMILY MY FAMILY'S NAME AND MY MOTHER ESPECIALLY. I HOPE YOU'LL ALLOW
PLEASE TO RESUME PRACTICING LAW AND TO CONTINUE REPRESENTING REGULAR PEOPLE
LIKE I ALWAYS HAVE. ALMOST EVERYBODY I'VE EVER REPRESENTED IS EITHER POOR OR MIDDLE
CLASS PERSON AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME AND
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF BOTH MY COMMENTS AND MY ATTORNEY'S COMMENTS ON MY BEHALF.
CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER: THANK YOU, MR. SPARK. WE'LL TAKE THE MATTER
UNDER ADVISEMENT