On Tuesday, May 2, 2023, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered the suspension of Clifton attorney Morton Chirnomas in relation to the order of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) excluding Chirnomas from practice before USPTO in patent, trademark, and non-patent matters for abandoning a client.
The case is styled ‘In the Matter of Morton Chirnomas,’ and was brought by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE), with case no. DRB-20-249.
The charges cited RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b)(failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and to comply with reasonable requests for information), RPC 1.15(a)(commingling), RPC1.16(d)(upon termination of representation, failing to take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests), RPC 8.1(b)(failing to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and RPC 8.4(c)(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
The New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct can be found here.
On April 29, 2021, an Order excluding Chirnomas from practice before the USPTO was entered pursuant to Chirnomas’ failure to answer a Complaint accusing Chirnomas of misconduct. The misconduct involved the preparation and filing of a national stage utility patent application with the USPTO, for which the respondent received on January 15, 2018, the amount of $2,610 from his client, FZU, for filing the application inclusive of the $500 patent legal services fee. However, instead of placing those funds into a client trust account or remitting the required filing fees to the USPTO, Chirnomas failed to do so. As a result, the application became abandoned due to Chirnomas’s failure to pay the fees.
In addition, Chirnomas failed to respond to the client’s multiple requests for an explanation when FZU learned of the abandoned status of the application. Chirnomas unilaterally ceased communication with FZU even after the latter sought new legal representation. Chirnomas also failed to refund the filing fees that FZU had already paid in advance.
The filing states:
“On January 15, 2018, respondent filed the application for FZU’s invention, using his Clifton address of record. However, he failed to pay the required filing fee. Thus, the USPTO notified respondent, by letter, of his failure to pay the filing fee required to perfect FZU’s application. Respondent failed to notify FZU or Bauer of the USPTO’s deficiency notice. Moreover, he failed to pay the required filing fee or to otherwise reply to the USPTO. Consequently, the USPTO notified respondent, by letter, that FZU’s application had been deemed abandoned, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.495, due to his failure to pay the filing fee. Respondent failed to notify FZU or Bauer of the USPTO’s abandonment notice. ”
Chirnomas was reciprocally disciplined in Massachusetts on December 18, 2021, in relation to this matter, and he failed to report to the OAE either the discipline imposed by the USPTO or his Massachusetts discipline.
Based on these facts, the OAE filed a motion for reciprocal discipline before the Disciplinary Review Board. OAE recommended a censure for Chirnomas’ misconduct.
On review, the Disciplinary Review Board, determined to grant OAE’s motion for reciprocal discipline, however, it concluded that the appropriate sanction is a six-month suspension.
Accordingly, the Court, after consideration of the foregoing facts and the Board’s decision ruled to suspend Chirnomas for his violation of the rules of professional conduct as charged.
The Order reads:
“It is ORDERED that Morton Chirnomas is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, and until the further Order of the Court, effective June 12, 2023; . . . ”
Mr. Morton Chirnomas maintains a solo practice in Mount Freedom. He has been licensed to practice in New Jersey and Massachusetts. His info can be found on lawyers.com.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
