On Wednesday, December 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order reprimanding attorney Brian Michael Dratch for multiple violations of professional conduct rules. Dratch faced disciplinary action following a recommendation from the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB).
The case is entitled “In the Matter of Brian Michael Dratch,” with case no. 090077.
The charges cited New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4(b), 1.4(c), 1.15(a), 1.16(d), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d).
The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from a motion for discipline by consent, which was filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics. The motion outlined several violations attributed to Dratch under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). Specifically, he was found to have engaged in gross neglect, lacked diligence in representation, failed to communicate effectively with a client, and did not provide adequate explanations necessary for informed client decisions. Additionally, he was cited for failing to protect a client’s interests upon the conclusion of his representation.
The DRB’s investigation led to the dismissal of several other charges against Dratch, including allegations of failing to safeguard client property (RPC 1.15(a)), not cooperating with disciplinary authorities (RPC 8.1(b)), and engaging in conduct detrimental to the administration of justice (RPC 8.4(d)). Ultimately, the Board determined that a reprimand was the appropriate disciplinary action for the violations.
The disciplinary issues arose from Dratch’s representation of Phillip Battease, an inmate who retained him to pursue a medical malpractice claim against the State of New York. Dratch filed the claim in June 2016 but failed to keep Battease informed about the status of the case for an extended period, leading to significant communication breakdowns. Dratch did not allow Battease a fair chance to contest the State of New York’s summary judgment motion or to appeal the dismissal of his claim. Instead of quickly sharing the motion with Battease, Dratch delayed and only provided it the day before a critical deadline.
In its order, the Supreme Court noted that the entire record of the proceedings would be made a permanent part of Dratch’s professional file. Furthermore, Dratch is required to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs and expenses incurred during the prosecution of the case, in accordance with established rules.
According to avvo.com, Mr. Dratch is a criminal defense attorney in Livingston, New Jersey. He attended the Seton Hall University School of Law, graduating in 2000. He acquired his law license in New Jersey in the same year.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
