## Facts

- Robert C. Yacavino was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1974 and entered private practice in 1980.
- In 1981, Yacavino joined a law firm that had taken over the practice of a retiring attorney in Pompton Plains, New Jersey, and he was assigned to work out of that office.
- For about a year, Yacavino worked alone in the Pompton Plains office with little supervision; the firm’s partners rarely visited.
- During that period, Yacavino was assigned an adoption matter for a client previously represented by the retiring attorney. The client sought to adopt his second wife’s children in what was expected to be a straightforward, uncontested proceeding, with consent from the natural father.
- Yacavino told the client at the initial interview that completing the adoption would not be difficult.
- Despite repeated inquiries from the client and his wife, Yacavino did essentially nothing to move the matter forward for almost a year, leaving the file dormant.
- Yacavino obtained the natural father’s written consent and claimed to have prepared a draft complaint, but he did not take the steps needed to obtain an adoption judgment.
- In April 1982, the Pompton Plains office closed. Yacavino declined to work out of the firm’s other offices but continued to handle approximately ten firm matters, including this adoption case.
- After opening his own office in Pompton Plains, Yacavino still failed to advance the adoption and began concealing his neglect.
- To mislead the clients into believing the matter was progressing—and later to suggest it had been completed—Yacavino repeatedly misrepresented the status of the case and prepared two false court orders purporting to be issued in the adoption proceeding.
- Disciplinary charges were filed, and the Disciplinary Review Board recommended that Yacavino be suspended from the practice of law for three years.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence showed that Yacavino neglected the adoption matter and misrepresented its status to his clients, including by preparing false court orders.
2. What discipline was warranted for sustained neglect combined with intentional deceit directed at clients and involving fabricated court documents.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey conducted an independent review of the record in the disciplinary proceeding.
- The Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Yacavino neglected the adoption matter and repeatedly misrepresented its status to the clients, including by creating two false court orders.
- The Court concluded that the misconduct warranted the discipline recommended by the Disciplinary Review Board.
- Yacavino was suspended from the practice of law for three years.

## Legal Principles

- In attorney discipline matters, the Supreme Court of New Jersey independently reviews the record and imposes discipline when it is clearly convinced that the charges are supported by clear and convincing evidence.
- Prolonged inattention to a client’s legal matter, particularly in the face of repeated client inquiries, is professional misconduct and warrants meaningful discipline.
- Dishonesty to clients about the status of a matter is serious misconduct; fabricating documents that appear to be court orders is especially serious because it directly damages confidence in the courts and the bar.
- The absence of personal financial gain does not excuse intentional misrepresentation used to hide neglect.
- Discipline in attorney ethics matters is imposed to protect the public and preserve confidence in the legal profession, not to punish for its own sake.

## Conclusion

In *In re Yacavino*, the New Jersey Supreme Court suspended Robert C. Yacavino for three years after finding that he left a straightforward adoption matter dormant for an extended period and then attempted to conceal that neglect through repeated misrepresentations to his clients, including by preparing two false court orders to make it appear that the adoption case was moving forward.


In re Yacavino, 494 A.2d 801 (1985)