## Facts

- Lester T. Vincenti was admitted to practice law in New Jersey in 1971 and had an extensive prior disciplinary history, including multiple reported decisions and prior suspensions; he was also under suspension for unrelated matters during these proceedings.
- The Office of Attorney Ethics filed two disciplinary complaints that were consolidated and tried before a Special Master, who recommended disbarment; the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) also recommended disbarment.
- A major component of the misconduct arose from a parental-rights termination trial involving the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS).
- Vincenti initially agreed only to observe the termination trial to assist a separate federal civil-rights action and to be paid from any recovery in that federal matter, but he effectively assumed control of the defense in the termination proceeding.
- After roughly forty days of trial, the presiding judge barred Vincenti from further participation based on repeated obstruction of the judicial process, violations of professional rules, and unnecessary prolongation of the proceeding.
- The established misconduct included disrespect toward the court, harassment and intimidation of witnesses (including experts), accusations of bias and conspiracy directed at judges and opposing counsel, and filings containing false statements of material fact.
- The charges also included fee-related misconduct, misuse of “Legal Clinic” on letterhead without required disclosure, and failure to cooperate with ethics authorities.
- The Special Master and DRB found the conduct to be part of a continuing pattern of abusive and disruptive behavior rather than isolated incidents.

## Issues

1. Whether Vincenti’s proven misconduct across the consolidated complaints, viewed in light of his prior disciplinary record and lack of reform, warranted disbarment rather than a lesser sanction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered Vincenti disbarred.
- The court conducted an independent review and adopted the DRB’s findings and conclusions as the court’s own, with only minor editorial changes.
- The court concluded the record showed no reasonable expectation that Vincenti’s conduct would improve if returned to practice and that final, permanent discipline was required to protect the public and the justice system.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney discipline is imposed primarily to protect the public, preserve confidence in the bar, and safeguard the administration of justice, not to punish the attorney.
- Disbarment is appropriate when an attorney demonstrates a sustained pattern of serious misconduct—such as disruption of tribunals, harassment of participants, disobedience of court orders, dishonesty to tribunals, and prejudice to the administration of justice—especially after prior discipline has failed to deter similar conduct.
- Persistent failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and repeated contemptuous conduct toward courts and participants aggravate sanction analysis and may support removal from the practice of law.

## Conclusion

The court disbarred Vincenti because his long-running pattern of obstructive, abusive, and dishonest conduct—combined with repeated prior discipline and no credible prospect of reform—posed an ongoing threat to the administration of justice and required permanent protection of the public and the profession.


In re Vincenti, 704 A.2d 927 (N.J. 1998)