This blog has in the past noted anniversaries of Supreme Court decisions involving appeals from the Court’s Committee on Character, on which I served for fifteen years. Today is another such anniversary, as on October 22, 1997, the Court decided In re Triffin, 151 N.J. 510 (1997).

Triffin had been denied admission to the Pennsylvania Bar in 1992. He took and passed the New Jersey Bar examination in 1993. The Supreme Court of New Jersey Committee on Character held a hearing on his application, and the RG 303 hearing panel recommended that Bar admission be denied. Triffin appealed to Committee’s Statewide Panel, which affirmed the panel’s recommendation. On Triffin’s appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously voted to deny Bar admission in an opinion by Justice Garibaldi.

Triffin had much baggage, as Justice Garibaldi observed. “In determining that Triffin was unfit to practice law, the Committee relied on the Pennsylvania courts’ findings of civil fraud, unauthorized practice of law, and unprofessional conduct in two contested legal matters; Triffin’s lack of respect for the judicial process; his lack of financial responsibility; and the lack of even a ‘scintilla of evidence’ of rehabilitation.”

The Court proceeded to discuss those matters at some length. This post will not recount them all, but the Court’s opinion is well worth reading in its entirety to get a full flavor of the matter.

In a Pennsylvania lawsuit he brought against Continental Bank, Triffin failed to appear for his deposition, ignored an order that he appear for a deposition, for which the court imposed a monetary sanction, and failed to pay that sanction or appear for a deposition on a subsequent date. Ultimately, the court dismissed his case with prejudice and barred from presenting evidence in opposition to a counterclaim that the bank had filed.

Though both Triffin and his counsel had been notified of a trial date for the counterclaim, Triffin failed to attend the trial and directed his attorney not to appear either. The court determined that Triffin had been involved in a check-kiting scheme and entered judgment against Triffin for $99,932.00 plus costs.

“Despite claiming to understand that the RG 303 Panel would not retry Continental Bank, Triffin insisted on attempting to prove that he did not commit civil fraud.” That did not avail. Nor did his claim that he had been “the victim of a reverse check-kiting scheme.” Finally, he offered “several contradictory excuses for his behavior relating to the Continental Bank litigation,” particularly his failure to sit for a deposition and to attend the trial on the counterclaim. Justice Garibaldi noted that his arguments to the Court were at variance with reasons he advanced in his Pennsylvania Bar proceedings.

While the bank case was pending, Triffin began law school. He applied to take the Pennsylvania Bar. But the Pennsylvania Board of Bar Examiners “refused to allow Triffin to sit for the examination because his application failed to establish the ‘[a]bsence of prior conduct by the applicant which in the opinion of the Board indicates character and general disqualifications … incompatible with the standards expected to be observed by members of the bar….’” Triffin then filed a federal lawsuit against his former attorney, “all seven justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the members of the Pennsylvania Board. Among other things, Triffin sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the members of the Pennsylvania Board arising from the denial of his bar application.” The federal court denied his application for a preliminary injunction.

Thereafter, the Pennsylvania Board of Bar Examiners held a hearing on the merits of Triffin’s Bar application. The hearing ran for six sessions. Unanimously rejecting his application, “The Pennsylvania Board found the following misconduct by Triffin: ‘(1) making false statements, including omissions; (2) acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (3) abuse of legal process; (4) violation of orders of court; and (5) neglect of financial responsibility.’”

Triffijn reapplied, but “the Pennsylvania Board rejected his second application and informed him of his right to appeal the Board's decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Rather than pursue that option, Triffin brought an action in federal district court challenging, among other things, the rules, customs, and practices of the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners and Disciplinary Board relating to consideration of persons reapplying for admission to the bar. On April 25, 1994, Triffin's complaint was dismissed with prejudice as to all defendants.”

There was much, much more, including testimony by some witnesses before the RG 303 panel about their dealings with him that “suggest[ed] that he still lacks respect for the judicial process and the administration of justice.” He failed to demonstrate financial responsibility, offered “no showing of rehabilitation,” and did not renounce his past misconduct.

The Court said it did not “know whether Triffin will ever be rehabilitated.” The Court did allow him to reapply for admission, but “no earlier than three years from the filing date of this opinion.” Most candidates whose Bar admission the Court withholds are permitted to reapply after a one year interval.

This opinion is a landmark in Committee on Character law. Anyone who applies for New Jersey Bar admission must be fully aware of its lessons.