Font Size: 
Lawyer Reprimanded for Botching Appeals and Failing to Tell Clients
New Jersey Law Journal
September 12, 2008
The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded a Cherry Hill, N.J., solo for failing to file briefs on time, thereby causing appeals to be dismissed, and then not notifying the clients.
In a decision made public Sept. 5, the court reprimanded Clifford Van Syoc for violating Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1 (a) (gross neglect), 1.3 (lack of diligence), and 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with clients).
Lawyers usually draw admonitions for failures to communicate, but the state Disciplinary Review Board had called for a stiffer discipline because Van Syoc has a history. He was admonished for similar conduct in April 2003, and one of the brief-filing failures that led to the present ethics case occurred in late 2002, while the earlier case was pending.
Van Syoc represented two Winslow Township, N.J., police officers, Tyrone Nock and Christopher Halscheid, who were suing their department under the state Law Against Discrimination.
Nock's suit was dismissed on summary judgment. Van Syoc filed a notice of appeal in June 2002 but failed to file a brief by the September 2002 deadline and the case was dismissed that October. In subsequent months, Nock wrote several times to Van Syoc, asking about status of the case, but got no answer.
In May 2003, Nock learned from fellow officer Halscheid that the appeal had been dismissed. He asked for his file but Van Syoc insisted on reimbursement for expenses and assurance from substitute counsel that his lien for services would be honored. Van Syoc claimed in a letter to Nock that his firm "made repeated attempts to contact [Nock]," which Van Syoc later admitted to the DRB was untrue.
In Halscheid's case, after the suit was dismissed on summary judgment, Van Syoc filed a notice of appeal in June 2002 but failed to file a brief by November, prompting dismissal of the case in December. Halscheid did not learn of the dismissal until May 2003. After receiving invoices from Van Syoc, Halscheid met with him and handed over a check, at which point Van Syoc told him the appeal had been dismissed.
Special Master John McFeeley III noted in mitigation that Van Syoc takes on the types of cases that most attorneys won't handle and had a heavy caseload, staffing problems and a busy trial schedule at the time of the misconduct. He was also suffering from chest pains, though he did not require hospitalization.
McFeeley noted as an aggravating factor that at the time he was neglecting the Nock and Halscheid cases, Van Syoc was under an ethics investigation. "At that point, [Van Syoc] would have known that his prior dilatory practice was under scrutiny and, therefore, he should have paid more attention to his professional conduct and office management," the DRB said in its July 8 opinion.
Van Syoc's attorney in the disciplinary case, Steven Kudatzky, a Marlton, N.J., solo, did not return a reporter's call.
