On Wednesday, September 10, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court suspended attorney Daniel Goldsmith Ruggiero from practicing law for three months, effective October 10, 2025. The suspension stems from reciprocal discipline imposed due to unethical conduct found by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Daniel Goldsmith Ruggiero,” with case number 090770.
The Massachusetts court found Ruggiero guilty of actions that, in New Jersey, constitute violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). These include gross neglect (RPC 1.1(a)), failure to keep clients reasonably informed (RPC 1.4(b)), and failure to adequately explain matters to clients (RPC 1.4(c)).
Additional violations include failure to supervise a nonlawyer assistant (RPC 5.3(b)), responsibility for a nonlawyer’s misconduct (RPC 5.3(c)), fee sharing with a nonlawyer (RPC 5.4(a)), and making false or misleading communications (RPC 7.1(a)(1)). Ruggiero was also found to have used an impermissible firm name or letterhead (RPC 7.5(a) and RPC 7.5(e)) and engaged in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (RPC 8.4(c)).
The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) of New Jersey had filed a decision with the Court, recommending the suspension based on Rule 1:20-14(a), which addresses reciprocal discipline.
Furthermore, the DRB recommended that the Court consider a revised disciplinary approach for unethical conduct related to collecting advance fees for mortgage modification services, citing the increasing prevalence of such misconduct. This issue involves violations of the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) regulations. The Court has put the members of the New Jersey bar on notice that they may be subjected to enhanced discipline for future violations of the MARS regulations.
The Court’s order mandates Ruggiero to comply with Rule 1:20-20, which pertains to suspended attorneys. Failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement under Rule 1:20-20(b)(15) may lead to the DRB delaying consideration of Ruggiero’s reinstatement petition by up to six months. Non-compliance could also be construed as a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(d), potentially resulting in contempt of court charges under Rule 1:10-2.
The Supreme Court has ordered that the complete record of the case be permanently included in Ruggiero’s file as an attorney in New Jersey. Ruggiero must also reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for the administrative costs and actual expenses incurred during the prosecution of the matter.
According to Avvo, Mr. Ruggiero is a litigation lawyer in Newton, MA. He acquired his law license in New Jersey in 2007.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
