On Wednesday, October 19, 2022, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled on the Disciplinary Review Board’s decision relating to charges for attorney discipline against Boca Raton attorney Michele S. Austin for failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and for engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
The case titled In the Matter of Michele S. Austin was brought by the Office of Attorney Ethics (“OAE”), case no. DRB 21-248.
The charges cited RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities) and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice).
According to the charges, Respondent was suspended on November 21, 2016, for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements; on August 28, 2017, for failure to pay an annual assessment to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection; on March 11, 2021, for failure to cooperate in the OAE’s investigation underlying DRB 21-191; and on May 24, 2021, for failure to refund $2,500 to a client as determined by District IIIB Fee Arbitration Committee.
To date, respondent remains administratively ineligible, in both respects, and temporarily suspended, in both respects.
A copy of the formal ethics complaint and an amended complaint were sent to the respondent on September 21, 2021, and October 21, 2021, respectively.
Respondent had not filed an answer to the complaint as of November 16, 2021, and neither did she file a motion to vacate the certification of default by the Office of Attorney Ethics.
The Disciplinary Review Board, in its Decision dated February 25, 2022, determined that the facts recited in the formal ethics complaint support all the charges of unethical conduct and that censure is the quantum of discipline necessary for Respondent’s conduct.
Seven out of the nine members of the Disciplinary Review Board voted for censure, while member Gallipoli voted to impose a six-month suspension. Member Boyer was absent at the time of voting.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey departed from the Board’s recommendation of censure. The Court determined that a reprimand is an appropriate discipline for Repondent.
The Order reads:
“It is ORDERED that Michele S. Austin is hereby reprimanded; and it is further
ORDERED that Michele S. Austin remain suspended from practice pursuant to the Orders of this Court and that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; 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 OversightCommittee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided inRule1:20-17.”
According to LinkedIn, Ms. Michele S. Austin attended Seton Hall University School of Law, graduating in 2008. She has been licensed in New Jersey, license no. 039382008.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
