On Wednesday, May 31, 2023, the Supreme Court of New Jersey censured attorney Justin Scott for unlawful access to his former employer’s computer system.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Justin Scott,” with case no. 087620.

The charges cited the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 8.1(a) (b) and 8.4(c) which states:

Making a false statement of material fact to disciplinary authorities.

Committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respect.

Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

The Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.

In this case, the respondent unlawfully accessed his former employer’s computer system after being terminated, which is a serious offense considering lawyers handle confidential and privileged client information. While the respondent claimed his actions were driven by a curiosity about a colleague’s schedule and had no malicious intent, the OAE argues that any unauthorized access is inherently malicious. According to the complaint, the respondent’s unauthorized entry into the firm’s computer system is akin to physically breaking into his own law office premises.

The Decision states:

“Respondent asserted that on the six occasions when he accessed Bratton’s computer system following his termination, he had difficulty staying logged on, was granted access for five-minute intervals, and had to repeatedly log back on to access the calendar. Respondent admitted that he had access to Bratton’s client lists but denied using them for any purpose. Respondent also denied having access to any client medical records, personal or professional e-mails, or marketing materials.”

The Decision continues:

“Bratton also testified to having learned that a third client had been contacted by the respondent, but could not recall the date, other than it occurring after the respondent’s July 2018 termination.9 Bratton admitted, however, that his computer forensic company was unable to determine what client files, if any, respondent had remotely accessed or whether client files had been copied.”

The Decision further states:

“With respect to respondent’s installation of TeamViewer on his former desktop computer, the OAE relied upon the testimony of Bratton, who unambiguously stated he did not authorize the installation of TeamViewer on the Firm’s computers. The OAE also relied upon Minker’s corroborating testimony that his company does not use TeamViewer and had not installed TeamViewer on a Firm computer.”

According to the court, the totality of the respondent’s misconduct warrants more severe discipline. Consistent with the OAE’s and the DEC’s recommended quantum of discipline, the court concluded that censure is the baseline discipline for the respondent’s misconduct.

The Disposition states:

“It is ORDERED that Justin Scott is hereby censured, and it is further ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of the 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. Scott, Esq. is listed as the managing attorney at Scott Counsel, P.C. He practices in Haddonfield, New Jersey. He is licensed in New Jersey. His info can be found on Linkedin.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.