On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey censured attorney Christopher Roy Higgins, who has been the subject of disciplinary proceedings due to violations of professional conduct rules.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Christopher Roy Higgins,” with case no. 089851.
The Supreme Court’s decision stemmed from a recommendation by the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) following a disciplinary stipulation between Higgins and the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE). The case centered around Higgins’ actions during his suspension period. According to a detailed affidavit Higgins submitted on July 14, 2021, he claimed he was not engaged in private practice but was working as “of counsel” to a firm and performing “per diem work for various other firms and remote document review work.”
However, in his petition for reinstatement filed on October 19, 2021, Higgins disclosed that during his suspension, he had worked as a “document reviewer” for Consilio Services LLC and Cambridge Professional Group. He had signed “Contract Attorney Agreements” with both companies, electronically executing the contracts under the title “Contract Attorney.”
Both Consilio and Cambridge employ licensed attorneys and law school graduates on a project basis to assist law firms with large-scale document productions in litigation matters. While some projects require licensed attorneys, others allow for both attorneys and law graduates. Higgins informed both companies of his suspension, precluding him from projects demanding a law license during that time.
As a document reviewer, Higgins’ tasks involved a preliminary review of documents for confidentiality and privilege. He was instructed to categorize documents based on their privilege status, mark items responsive to categories specified by the attorney, and identify references to potential witnesses. Higgins did not make final decisions on the assignments and had limited interactions with outside counsel, primarily communicating with project managers employed by Consilio and Cambridge.
Between August 13 and December 3, 2021, Higgins received compensation from Consilio for his document review work, and on September 24, 2021, he was paid by Cambridge for similar services. Based on these facts, Higgins acknowledged that he had improperly provided legal services and acted as an agent or employee of Consilio and Cambridge while suspended, violating Rule 1:20-20. He admitted to engaging in the unauthorized practice of law on behalf of both companies, violating RPC 5.5(a)(1).
The DRB concluded that the stipulated facts definitively supported the charge of practicing law while suspended, violating RPC 5.5(a)(1). However, they dismissed the charge of violating RPC 8.4(d), which prohibits conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The OAE initially recommended no additional discipline for Higgins’ misconduct, arguing that the two-month delay in his reinstatement, which occurred on December 10, 2021, effectively served as a suspension. They argued that Higgins was eligible for reinstatement on October 15, 2021, but the OAE’s objection based on his unauthorized practice of law led to the delay. The OAE also cited mitigating factors, such as Higgins’ abstinence from alcohol, which had contributed to his prior disciplinary actions, and his participation in recovery programs. Additionally, they pointed out that Higgins had not faced any disciplinary actions since his reinstatement.
The DRB, however, rejected the OAE’s argument for no additional discipline. They pointed out that Higgins knowingly practiced law while suspended, evidenced by his timely filing of the R. 1:20-20 affidavit the day before his suspension took effect.
“Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances presented in the Stipulation and the record before the Board, Vice-Chair Boyer and Members Petrou, Rodriguez, and Spencer are of the view that a six-month suspension is the appropriate sanction in this case.,,” the said.
Since the Disciplinary Review Board was evenly divided on the appropriate level of discipline, the Court concluded that a censure is warranted for Christopher Roy Higgins due to his unethical conduct.
The Disposition states:
“It is ORDERED that Christopher Roy Higgins is hereby censured.
According to avvo.com, Mr. Higgins is a litigation attorney in Milford, New Jersey. He attended the Thomas M. Cooley Law School, graduating in 2011. He acquired his law license in New Jersey in 2012.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
