(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for
the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized).
Argued June 20, 1995 -- Decided November 9, 1995
PER CURIAM
This matter arises from a motion filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics for final discipline. On
August 4, 1989, following certain criminal convictions, Arthur Abba Goldberg was temporarily suspended
from the practice of law in New Jersey.
Goldberg pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to three
counts of mail fraud. At that time, he was executive vice president and a major stockholder of Matthews &
Wright, Inc., a New York underwriting firm. Goldberg directed Matthews & Wright's municipal
underwriting activity. Matthews & Wright contracted with the Guam Economic Development Authority
(GEDA) to underwrite $300 million worth of bonds. According to the United States Attorney, Goldberg and
others at Matthews & Wright engaged in a fraudulent scheme by participating in bribery and deception to
procure the issuance of the bonds in order to finance single-family housing in Guam. As a result of this
scheme, the GEDA's plan to finance the housing collapsed.
In exchange for underwriting the bonds, Goldberg and Matthews & Wright received a fee of $10.5
million. Matthews & Wright deposited $4.5 million on a trust fund known as the Program Development
Fund (PDF) for the development of multi-family housing in Guam. Two checks drawn on the PDF account
formed the basis of Goldberg's convictions. One of those checks was drawn in the amount of $30,000 and
was issued to Management and Development, the consulting company of Municipal Resources. The check
was purportedly issued to Municipal Resources for reviewing an FHA credit-enhancement study that was to
assist Guam developers. Goldberg knew that Municipal Resources had not reviewed that study because it
did not exist. Nonetheless, Goldberg approved the bogus bill sent by Municipal Resources. This money was
allegedly used to bribe the Governor of Guam in exchange for supporting the bond issue. In his Rule 11(c)
statement, in compliance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Goldberg stated the factual basis for
his plea. He admitted that: the $30,000 disbursement was improper and was not for an appropriate purpose;
and he knowingly caused the money to be delivered by U.S. mail.
The second PDF check was in the amount of $27,500 and was payable to Alpha Communications,
Ltd., a non-existent consulting company that Goldberg had an employee create. Goldberg approved the
issuance of the check to Alpha for services that it never performed and $15,000 of those funds were used by
Goldberg, personally. In his Rule 11(c) statement, Goldberg admitted that: he caused the improper
disbursement of $27,500 to Alpha Communications; the disbursement was improper and was not for an
appropriate purpose; and he knowingly caused the money to be delivered by U.S. mail.
The third count of mail fraud against Goldberg charged that in furtherance of the PDF mail fraud,
he caused a letter to be mailed to the GEDA on October 26, 1986 that deprived Guam of $57,500 deposited
in the PDF.
Goldberg pleaded guilty to all three counts of mail fraud and admitted that he acted with reckless
indifference in the authorization of improper disbursements from the PDF, in the truth or falsity of the
representations in the mailings, and in Guam's legal and financial interests. Goldberg was sentenced
Goldberg to a term of eighteen-months imprisonment and was fined and ordered to pay partial restitution to
the Territory of Guam.
Goldberg also pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to one
count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. In that matter, Matthews & Wright agreed to underwrite
the issuance of over $223 million in escrow bonds for the development of a riverfront housing project in East
St. Louis, Illinois. The indictment alleged that Goldberg participated in a conspiracy to ensure that the
bonds were deemed issued on December 31, 1985 even though they were not validly issued until 1986. This
enabled Goldberg to take advantage of a favorable tax law relating to arbitrage transactions. Goldberg was
sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the California term.
The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) unanimously recommended disbarment. Goldberg
contended that the Court could not disbar him for intentional misconduct because he had pled guilty only to
reckless authorization of improper disbursements and to use of the mail in connection with those
disbursements. After oral argument, the Court remanded the matter to the DRB for "findings setting forth
those facts conclusively presumed to exist because of the conviction itself...."
On remand, the DRB again unanimously recommended disbarment. The DRB concluded that
Goldberg's criminal convictions clearly and convincingly demonstrated his participation in activities that
reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer.
HELD: Because his criminal convictions clearly and convincingly demonstrate his participation in activities
that reflect adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness and fitness as a lawyer, Arthur Abba Goldberg
is DISBARRED from the practice of law in New Jersey.
1. A criminal conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt in disciplinary proceedings; therefore, the only issue
to be determined is the quantum discipline to be imposed. In making that determination, the Court looks at:
the nature and severity of the crimes; whether the crime was related to the practice of law; and any
mitigating factors, such as evidence of the attorney's good reputation and character. The facts underlying a
motion for final discipline based on a criminal conviction also may be relevant to the nature of the discipline
imposed. (pp. 10-11)
2. The pre-sentence reports and the sentencing hearing shed light on the totality of the circumstances
surrounding Goldberg's guilty pleas. In the California action, Goldberg admitted to reckless indifference in
the authorization of improper disbursements from the PDF; in the truth or falsity of the representations in
the mailings; and in Guam's legal and financial interest in the PDF. The presentence report indicates that
Goldberg's conduct, in addition to being reckless, was knowingly and willfully dishonest. Furthermore, in the
Illinois action, Goldberg's Rule 11(c) statement provides clear and convincing evidence of his dishonest and
fraudulent conduct. He admittedly stated that he knowingly and willfully conspired to interfere with the IRS.
(pp. 11-13)
3. Criminal convictions for conspiracy to commit a variety of crimes, such as bribery, official misconduct,
theft by deception, and fraud, ordinarily result in disbarment. Clear and convincing evidence supports
Goldberg's disbarment. The Illinois criminal-conspiracy conviction clearly demonstrates Goldberg's
purposeful and illegal conduct; and the presentence report in California action amply illustrates Goldberg's
knowingly dishonest acts. (pp. 13-15)
4. Goldberg was actively involved in community service and in efforts to resettle immigrants from the former
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Nonetheless, his conscious participation in the illegal activities leading to
his criminal convictions outweighs these mitigating factors. Although Goldberg's conduct and criminal
convictions do not relate directly to the practice of law, he was obligated to adhere to the high standards of
conduct required of a member of the bar even though his activities did not involve the practice of law.
(p. 15)
So ordered.
CHIEF JUSTICE WILENTZ and JUSTICES HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI,
STEIN and COLEMAN join in this opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
D-
146 September Term 1994
IN THE MATTER OF
ARTHUR ABBA GOLDBERG,
An Attorney at Law.
Argued June 20, 1995 -- Decided November 9, 1995
On an Order to show cause why respondent
should not be disbarred or otherwise
disciplined.
JoAnn G. Eyler, Deputy Ethics Counsel, argued
the cause on behalf of Office of Attorney
Ethics.
William J. Brennan, III, argued the cause for
respondent (Smith, Stratton, Wise, Heher &
Brennan, attorneys; Mr. Brennan and Thomas E.
Hastings, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Pursuant to Rule 1:20-6(c)(2)(i), the Office of Attorney
Ethics (OAE) filed a motion for final discipline of respondent,
Arthur Abba Goldberg. The motion was based on two separate
criminal convictions. In the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, respondent pled guilty to
three counts of mail fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A.
§§1341,
1343. In the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, respondent pled guilty to one charge
ofconspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A.
§371.
The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) unanimously recommended
disbarment. Respondent contended that the Court could not disbar
him for intentional misconduct because he had pled guilty only to
reckless authorization of improper disbursements and to use of
the mails in connection with those disbursements. After oral
argument, we remanded the matter to the DRB "for findings setting
forth those facts conclusively presumed to exist because of the
conviction itself . . . ." We directed that the DRB should
set forth any additional facts it may find by
clear and convincing evidence that bear on
the question of appropriate discipline, such
facts to be based solely on the written
record of the criminal proceedings, including
transcripts of the plea proceedings, the
contents of the plea agreements, and any
documents the board finds respondent to have
conceded as accurate, including presentence
reports and sentencing memoranda . . . .
Finally, we directed that "if either party wishes other evidence
to be heard relating to those proposed findings, it shall move on
notice to the board for an evidential hearing . . . ."
The DRB requested respondent to produce the pre-sentence
reports prepared in connection with his two guilty pleas.
Respondent provided the reports. He did not present any other
evidence.
On remand, the DRB again unanimously recommended disbarment. It concluded that respondent's criminal convictions clearly and
convincingly demonstrated his participation in activities that
reflected adversely on his honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness
as a lawyer. In its Decision and Recommendation, the DRB stated:
"It is clear that [respondent] has engaged in criminal conduct
involving dishonesty and fraud, in violation of DR 102(A)(3) and
superseding RPC 8.4(b) and (c)." We agree.
We begin with a summary of the relevant facts underlying respondent's guilty plea to three counts of mail fraud in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Respondent was executive vice-president and a major stockholder of Matthews & Wright, Inc., a New York underwriting firm. As executive vice-president, respondent directed Matthews & Wright's municipal underwriting activity. Matthews & Wright contracted with the Guam Economic Development Authority (GEDA) to underwrite $300 million worth of bonds. According to the United States Attorney, respondent and others at Matthews & Wright actually engaged in a fraudulent scheme. In its fifty-two-count indictment, the United States Attorney alleged that respondent had participated in bribery and deception to procure the issuance of $300 million worth of bonds to finance single-family housing in Guam. As a result of this fraudulent scheme, the GEDA's plan to finance the housing collapsed.
In exchange for underwriting the bonds, respondent and
Matthews & Wright received a fee of $10.5 million. Matthews &
Wright deposited $4.5 million in a trust fund known as the
Program Development Fund (PDF). The PDF funds were for the
development of multi-family housing in Guam. Two checks drawn on
the PDF account formed the basis of respondent's convictions.
One check drawn in the amount of $30,000 was issued to Management & Development, the consulting company of Municipal Resources. The pre-sentence report states that respondent purportedly issued the check to Municipal Resources for reviewing a Federal Housing Authority credit-enhancement study that was to assist Guam developers. Respondent knew that Municipal Resources had not reviewed the study for the simple reason that the study did not exist. Respondent, nonetheless, approved the bogus bill sent by Municipal Resources. He then instructed Pittsburgh National Bank, the trustee for the PDF, to send a $30,000 check to Municipal Resources. The check was deposited in New American Federal Credit Union (NAFCU), a federal credit union formed by respondent and others for the ostensible purpose of making loans to emigres from Soviet Russia. Respondent was former president and chairman of the board of NAFCU. The pre-sentence report contends that respondent controlled the credit union through the NAFCU manager, Joel Schwartz. Through Schwartz, the $30,000 was eventually transferred to respondent's associate, Frederick Mann, who directed the funds to the political campaign of the governor
of Guam. At present, Mann is in Canada contesting extradition
proceedings. The pre-sentence report also asserts that the
$30,000 was actually a bribe to the Governor of Guam in exchange
for supporting the bond issue.
To preclude the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from
attempting to collect taxes from the bondholders, the GEDA agreed
to a settlement that included payment of a large portion of the
PDF to the IRS. In a civil suit brought by Guam, Matthews &
Wright stipulated to the release of any claim it had to the
monies remaining in the PDF.
In compliance with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule
11(c) (Rule 11(c) statement), respondent stated the factual basis
for his plea. He admitted:
Count 10 of the Indictment (mail fraud)
charges that I caused the improper
disbursement of funds amounting to $30,000 to
Municipal Resources: Management &
Development (Phillip J. Kieffer). I admit
that the $30,000 disbursement was improper
and was not for an appropriate purpose. I
accept full responsibility for this act. I
further admit that I knowingly caused matter
to be delivered by mail and by the U.S.
Postal Service in furtherance of the $30,000
disbursement. This offense occurred between
April - May 1986.
The second PDF check was in the amount of $27,500 and was payable to Alpha Communications Ltd. (Alpha), a non-existent
consulting company. Respondent approved the issuance of the
check to Alpha for services that it never performed. In a false
bill, Alpha stated that it had performed credit-enhancement
services and computer work in connection with the development of
the Guam bond program.
NAFCU also was involved in this payment. The pre-sentence
report states that respondent personally benefited in this
transaction. He needed to borrow $15,000 but did not want his
wife to learn of this loan. Consequently, respondent directed a
Matthews & Wright salesman to borrow $15,000 from NAFCU and
covertly lend it to respondent. The salesman, Tony Romano, had
borrowed heavily from NAFCU. According to the pre-sentence
report, Romano was financially obligated to respondent. Through
NAFCU internal accounting procedures, the $15,000 was transferred
from Romano's personal account to respondent.
Respondent repaid the $15,000 loan to Romano through the bogus bill issued by Alpha. The United States Attorney claims that respondent suggested to Romano that Romano set up Alpha and bill Matthews & Wright for non-existent consulting services. Consequently, Romano created Alpha and sent a $27,500 bill on Alpha letterhead to the Pittsburgh National Bank as trustee for the Guam PDF. Respondent authorized Pittsburgh National Bank to issue a $27,500 check to Alpha. The check was deposited in Alpha's account at NAFCU. On that same date, $15,000 was
transferred out of the Alpha account to Romano's personal account
to repay the $15,000 loan he had made to respondent.
In his Rule 11(c) statement, respondent also acknowledged:
Count 11 of the Indictment (mail fraud)
charges that I caused the improper
disbursement of funds amounting to $27,500 to
Alpha Communications Ltd. (Anthony M.
Romano). I admit that the $27,500
disbursement was improper and was not for an
appropriate purpose. I accept full
responsibility for the act. I further admit
that I knowingly caused matter to be
delivered by mail and by the U.S. Postal
Service in furtherance of the $27,500
disbursement. This offense occurred between
January - February 1986.
The third count charged that in furtherance of the PDF mail
fraud, respondent caused a letter to be mailed to the GEDA on
October 26, 1986. The letter deprived Guam of $57,500 deposited
in the PDF. Respondent stated in his Rule 11(c) statement:
I admit the foregoing insofar as it relates
to said unlawful disbursements from the PDF
and acknowledge that in sending the letter
described in Count 27, I caused a loss to
Guam in the total amount of $57,500. I
accept full responsibility for this act. I
further admit that I knowingly caused matter
to be delivered by mail and by the U.S.
Postal Service in furtherance of such total
disbursements of $57,500. This offense
occurred on October 26, 1986.
In sum, respondent pled guilty to three counts of mail
fraud.
On the basis of all the foregoing, and with
respect to Counts 10, 100 and 27, I admit
that I acted (i) with reckless indifference
as to my right to cause the foregoing
improper disbursements from the PDF, (ii)
with reckless indifference as to the truth or
falsity of the representations in said
mailings, and (iii) with reckless
indifference as to Guam's legal and financial
interests in said Fund with respect to the
foregoing, thereby causing Guam to lose
$57,500. I therefore committed mail fraud.
The court sentenced respondent to a term of eighteen months
imprisonment, fined him $100,000, and ordered him to pay $127,000
as partial restitution to the Territory of Guam.
In the Illinois matter, respondent pled guilty to conspiracy
to commit an offense against the United States and to defraud the
United States of and concerning its governmental functions and
right, in violation of
18 U.S.C.A.
§371.
Respondent was involved in project financing for the riverfront area of East St. Louis, Illinois. Respondent and his underwriting firm of Matthews & Wright agreed to underwrite the issuance of $223,735,000 in escrow bonds for the development of a riverfront housing project. The bonds supposedly were issued on December 31, 1985, but were not validly issued until 1986. In
1986, Matthews & Wright received an underwriting fee of $8
million.
In the indictment, the United States alleged that respondent
arranged to close the bond deal without the use of actual funds
in order to avoid the anticipated effective date of unfavorable
changes in the tax law regarding the treatment of arbitrage
bonds. The effect of this sham transaction was that the check
drawn by Matthews & Wright was returned to it and the bonds were
"warehoused" with a shell bank, the Commercial Bank of the
Americas, run by Frederick Mann. Because the bond closing was a
"cashless closing," the bonds were not validly issued until 1986,
after the effective change in the tax law. In sum, the
indictment alleged that respondent participated in a conspiracy
to ensure that the bonds were deemed issued on December 31, 1985,
to take advantage of a favorable tax law related to arbitrage
transactions.
Respondent stipulated to the following facts underlying his
guilty plea:
From on or about November 15, 1985 and continuing thereafter until or about January 1, 1987, one or more employees of Matthews & Wright, including Arthur Goldberg, while acting within the scope of their employment, knowingly, willfully and unlawfully, did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with others to impede, impair and interfere with the Internal Revenue Service in its lawful function of auditing tax matters. In
furtherance thereof, the following overt acts
were committed:
On or about October 8, 1985, Arthur Goldberg,
on behalf of Matthews & Wright, sent through
the United States mail a letter addressed to
the City Attorney for the City of East St.
Louis suggesting consideration of the
issuance of bonds for an athletic facility
and/or transportation facility.
Officials of the City of St. Louis and of
Matthews & Wright failed to file
informational returns with the IRS.
On April 21, 1986, Arthur Abba Goldberg spoke
to City Attorney Sam Ross by telephone.
The court sentenced respondent to eighteen months
imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the term imposed by
the Central District of California. No other penalties were
imposed. On August 4, 1989, following respondent's convictions,
respondent was temporarily suspended from the practice of law in
New Jersey, pursuant to Rule 1:20-6(b)(1).
A criminal conviction is conclusive evidence of respondent's guilt in disciplinary proceedings. R. 1:20-6(c)(i); In re Goldberg, 105 N.J. 278, 280 (1987); In re Tuso, 104 N.J. 59, 61 (1986); In re Rosen, 88 N.J. 1, 3 (1981). No independent examination of the underlying facts is necessary to ascertain guilt. In re Bricker, 90 N.J. 6, 10 (1982). The only issue to be determined is the quantum of discipline to be imposed. In re Goldberg, supra, 105 N.J. at 280. In determining the appropriate
discipline, "the Court's goal is to protect the interests of the
public and the bar while giving due consideration to the
interests of the individual involved." In re Litwin,
104 N.J. 362, 365 (1986).
Although we strive for uniformity in the imposition of
discipline, we judge each disciplinary proceeding on its own
merits. The calculus for discipline includes: the nature and
severity of the crime; whether the crime was related to the
practice of law; and any mitigating factors, such as evidence of
the attorney's good reputation and character. In re Kushner,
101 N.J. 397, 400-01 (1986). In addition, the facts underlying a
motion for final discipline based on a criminal conviction may be
relevant to the nature of the discipline imposed. In re
Goldberg, supra, 105 N.J. at 280; In re Kushner, supra, 101 N.J.
at 401. As we stated in In re Spina,
121 N.J. 378, 389 (1990):
When, as here, the proceedings are initiated
by a motion for final discipline based on a
criminal conviction, the ethics authorities
and this Court may be required to review any
transcripts of a trial or plea and sentencing
proceeding, pre-sentence report, and any
other relevant documents in order to obtain
the "full picture."
The uncontested pre-sentence reports and the sentencing
hearings shed light on the totality of the circumstances
surrounding respondent's guilty pleas.
In the California action, respondent admitted to "reckless
indifference" in: (1) the authorization of improper
disbursements from the PDF; (2) the truth or falsity of the
representations in the mailings; and (3) Guam's legal and
financial interest in the PDF. The pre-sentence report further
indicates that respondent's misconduct, in addition to being
reckless, was knowingly and willfully dishonest. The report
concludes that respondent authorized a check to Municipal
Resources for services that respondent knew had not been
rendered. Respondent's Rule 11(c) statement admits that the
disbursement was "improper" and was not for an "appropriate
purpose." His authorization of the check to Alpha also
implicated dishonest conduct. Respondent knew that Alpha had
issued a bogus bill to the PDF and knowingly approved payment of
the bogus bill.
Additionally, at respondent's sentencing hearing, the
sentencing judge concluded that "it is very clear that although
the defendant has only pleaded guilty to three counts of mail
fraud . . . there has been a conspiracy here of considerable
magnitude, which has involved a lot of money, and has deprived a
lot of people of some value."
In the Illinois action, respondent's own Rule 11(c) statement provides clear and convincing evidence of his dishonest and fraudulent conduct. Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c)
states that it is professional misconduct for an attorney to
"engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation." Respondent admitted in his Rule 11(c)
statement that he "knowingly and willfully" conspired to
interfere with the IRS.
Criminal convictions for conspiracy to commit a variety of crimes, such as bribery and official misconduct, as well as an assortment of crimes related to theft by deception and fraud, ordinarily result in disbarment. In re Baldino, 105 N.J. 453, 456 (1987); In re Conway, 107 N.J. 168, 182-83 (1987); In re Surgent, 104 N.J. 566, 569-70 (1986); In re Huber, 101 N.J. 1, 4-5 (1985). We have emphasized that when a criminal conspiracy evidences "continuing and prolonged, rather than episodic, involvement in crime," is "motivated by personal greed," and involved the use of the lawyers' skills "to assist in the engineering of the criminal scheme," the offense merits disbarment. In re Goldberg, supra, 105 N.J. at 283; see also In re Lunetta, 118 N.J. 443, 449 (1989) (disbarring attorney involved in "protracted criminal conspiracy . . . to receive and sell stolen securities"); In re Alosio, 99 N.J. 84, 87, 90 (1985) (disbarring attorney who organized scheme involving sale of stolen cars after guilty plea to one count of presenting false insurance claim and six counts of receiving stolen property). As we have stated, such conspiracies pose a "direct threat to
society," mandating disbarment "to preserve the integrity of the
bar." In re Goldberg, supra, 105 N.J. at 283.
We have even disbarred an attorney who had been acquitted of
all criminal charges, including a charge of conspiracy. In re
Rigolisi,
107 N.J. 192, 211 (1987). Notwithstanding the jury
verdict in that case, we concluded that the record clearly and
convincingly established that the attorney's conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, and deceit reflected his unfitness to practice
law.
In the present case, clear and convincing evidence supports
disbarment. Respondent's argument that his conduct was neither
knowing nor willful is specious. The Illinois criminal-conspiracy conviction clearly demonstrates his purposeful illegal
conduct. Moreover, the pre-sentence report in the California
action amply illustrates respondent's knowingly dishonest acts.
As we have said, "it is appropriate . . . to examine the totality
of circumstances, including the details of the offense, the
background of respondent, and the pre-sentence report in reaching
an appropriate decision that gives due consideration to the
interests of the attorney involved and to the protection of the
public." In re Spina, supra, 121 N.J. at 389.
At both the original hearing before the DRB and again on remand, respondent had the opportunity to dispel the inference
that he was the principal actor in two major frauds. On both
occasions, respondent elected to remain silent. In light of the
acknowledged facts about his participation in the fraudulent
schemes, his silence is resounding.
We are aware of respondent's active involvement in community
service and his efforts to resettle numerous immigrants from the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We also note receipt of
numerous character references on respondent's behalf.
Nonetheless, respondent's conscious participation in the illegal
activities leading to his criminal convictions outweighs these
mitigating factors.
Lastly, although respondent's conduct and criminal
convictions did not relate directly to the practice of law, we
have consistently held that "an attorney is obligated to adhere
to the high standards of conduct required of a member of the bar
even though his activities did not involve the practice of law."
In re Huber, supra, 101 N.J. at 4; In re Suchanoff,
93 N.J. 226,
230-31 (1983).
We are in complete accord with the unanimous recommendation
of the DRB that respondent should be disbarred. We direct
respondent to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for
appropriate administrative costs, including the costs of
transcripts.
Chief Justice Wilentz and Justices Handler, Pollock, O'Hern,
Garibaldi, Stein, and Coleman join in this opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
D-
146 September Term 1994
IN THE MATTER OF :
ARTHUR ABBA GOLDBERG, : O R D E R
AN ATTORNEY AT LAW :
It is ORDERED that ARTHUR ABBA GOLDBERG of LONG BRANCH, who
was admitted to the bar of this State in 1965, and who was
thereafter temporarily suspended from practice by Order of this
Court on August 4, 1989, and who remains suspended at this time,
be disbarred, effective immediately, and his name be stricken
from the roll of attorneys of this State; and it is further
ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any
New Jersey financial institution maintained by ARTHUR ABBA
GOLDBERG, pursuant to Rule 1:21-6 be restrained from disbursement
except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, and
shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of
the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the
Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court;
and it is further
ORDERED that ARTHUR ABBA GOLDBERG comply with Rule 1:20-20
dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further
ORDERED that ARTHUR ABBA GOLDBERG reimburse the Disciplinary
Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs,
including the cost of transcripts.
WITNESS, the Honorable Robert N. Wilentz, Chief Justice, at
Trenton, this 9th day of November, 1995.
/s/ Stephen W. Townsend
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
NO. D-146 SEPTEMBER TERM 1994
Application for
Disposition Disbar
Decided November 9, 1995
Order returnable
Opinion by PER CURIAM