On Friday, May 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order reprimanding attorney Royce W. Smith in light of a disciplinary matter regarding his conduct in Pennsylvania.
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Royce W. Smith,” with case no. 088935.
The charges cited New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5(a)(1), 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) which states:
Practicing law while ineligible.
Knowingly making a false statement of material fact to disciplinary authorities.
Failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities.
Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
According to the order, Smith was admitted to practice law in New Jersey in 2004 and has been temporarily suspended from practice since February 2021. The order stems from discipline previously imposed on Smith in Pennsylvania for unethical conduct that would violate New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct.
Specifically, the Disciplinary Review Board found clear and convincing evidence that Smith’s actions constituted violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The issue in question occurred from November 2016 through December 2016, when Smith was administratively suspended from practicing law in Pennsylvania for failing to complete mandatory attorney registration and pay required fees. During this period, Smith represented clients in multiple legal matters in Pennsylvania courts.
While Smith claimed he was unaware of his administrative suspension, the Disciplinary Review Board found he had at least constructive notice given his obligation to maintain his law license status as a solo practitioner. Further, after learning of the suspension from a federal court, Smith continued practicing law for over a month instead of immediately ceasing as required.
Most seriously, Smith filed a verified statement of compliance with Pennsylvania rules for suspended attorneys, in which he falsely claimed to have notified all required parties of the suspension and that no further notifications were needed. In reality, Smith had failed to properly notify any clients, courts, or jurisdictions as mandated.
In its decision, the Disciplinary Review Board conducted an analysis of the professional conduct rule violations and considered appropriate precedent in New Jersey for similar offenses involving false statements to disciplinary authorities. While noting mitigating factors for Smith, the Board ultimately recommended a reprimand as a reciprocal discipline to the public sanction previously imposed in Pennsylvania.
The New Jersey Supreme Court then issued the order formally reprimanding Smith and requiring him to pay administrative costs associated with the disciplinary proceedings, as required by court rules.
According to avvo.com, Mr. Smith is a medical malpractice attorney in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He attended the Temple University Beasley School of Law. He acquired his law license in New Jersey in 2004.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
