On December 30, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reprimanded Audobon attorney Eric J. Clayman for failure to keep the client reasonably informed about her case. The case is entitled “In the matter of Eric J. Clayman” with case no. 086651.
The charges cited Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4(b), 1.4(c) and 7.1(a) which state:
Failure to keep a client reasonably informed.
Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary permits the client to make an informed decision.
False or misleading communications regarding the lawyer’s service.
The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
In a letter dated January 21, 2022, it was stated that the Respondent was retained with a bankruptcy matter, wherein the client primarily sought to obtain a loan modification for her residence. Rrespondent prepared and filed a proposed Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, which sought loan modification. However, the respondent failed to advise the client that his services did not include providing her with assistance in obtaining that loan modification. Respondent was unable to produce any documentation showing that he had specifically informed Brown that she would be independently responsible for obtaining the loan modification.
The filing states:
“Throughout the representation, the respondent failed to keep Brown informed about the status of her bankruptcy matter. Specifically, the respondent failed to advise Brown that (1) her bankruptcy petition faced dismissal when no debt payments were made in advance of the first confirmation hearing; (2) immediate action was required after a meeting with the bankruptcy trustee was rescheduled; and (3) most egregiously, her bankruptcy petition was contingent on her obtaining the loan modification for her residence, for which he was not providing legal assistance. Consequently, Brown was unable to make an informed decision about the loan modification, for which she was independently responsible. Thus, the respondent stipulated to having violated RPC 14(6) and (c).”
The Board then determined that the facts are clear and convincing. The Board determined that the respondent’s failures to explain these facts and case developments deprived the client of the ability to make informed decisions in the bankruptcy proceedings. The Board further determined that client reasonably believed that the respondent was assisting her with the loan modification based upon his filing of pleadings on her behalf, which specifically sought the loan modification, coupled with his failure to explain that he was not providing that assistance.
The Disposition states:
“It is ORDERED that Eric J. Clayman of Cherry Hil is hereby reprimanded, and it is further ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.”
As of today, Mr. Clayman is listed on the website of the law firm Jenkins & Clayman as a practicing attorney. His info can be found on martindale.com. He attended Rutgers University Law School and graduated in 1985. Clayman practices in Audobon, New Jersey with license no. 015341985.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
