## Facts

- Lester T. Vincenti, a New Jersey attorney previously disciplined by a one-year suspension, engaged in misconduct while representing plaintiffs in a Union County civil action.
- The District Ethics Committee found that Vincenti’s courtroom behavior included abusive and improper conduct toward the trial judge and opposing counsel and that his actions disrupted proceedings and interfered with the orderly administration of justice.
- The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) adopted the ethics findings of Rules of Professional Conduct violations arising from the civil litigation and recommended a public reprimand.
- Separately, the Office of Attorney Ethics sought final discipline based on three petty disorderly-person convictions for using loud and abusive language under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(b).
- The DRB dismissed that motion, reasoning the events overlapped with earlier discipline and the statute supporting the convictions had been declared unconstitutional; no appeal was taken from that dismissal.

## Issues

1. What discipline is appropriate for Vincenti’s litigation-related misconduct given the nature of the conduct and his prior disciplinary history?
2. Whether the petty disorderly-person convictions under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(b) could serve as an independent basis for attorney discipline.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey accepted the DRB’s findings that Vincenti violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in the civil litigation.
- The Court rejected the DRB’s recommended public reprimand as insufficient and imposed a three-month suspension from the practice of law, to run consecutively to the suspension then in effect.
- The Court left undisturbed the DRB’s dismissal of the motion for final discipline based on the petty disorderly-person convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Abusive, insulting, or disruptive conduct toward a tribunal or opposing counsel that interferes with proceedings constitutes professional misconduct and is not excused as zealous advocacy.
- Attorney discipline is progressive; repeated similar misconduct after prior public discipline warrants more severe sanctions to protect the public and the administration of justice.
- Convictions resting on a statute later declared unconstitutional cannot be used as an independent, stand-alone basis for professional discipline where the disciplinary authority determines they are procedurally or substantively unavailable for that purpose.
- The Supreme Court retains ultimate authority over attorney discipline and may depart from recommended sanctions after independent review of the record.

## Conclusion

The court suspended Vincenti for three months for recurring abusive and disruptive litigation conduct, increasing the sanction beyond a reprimand in light of prior discipline, while declining to impose additional discipline premised on convictions under an unconstitutional statute.


In re Vincenti, 114 N.J. 275, 554 A.2d 470 (N.J. 1989)