Case Summary: In the Matter of Jordan B. Luber, Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 054241991)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB), in decision DRB 10-178, recommended final discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-13(c) for Jordan B. Luber of Lafayette Hills, Pennsylvania. Respondent had been admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1992 and had resigned from the practice of law by an Order filed June 29, 2007. The DRB concluded that respondent should be suspended for three years based on his guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to single counts of mail fraud and health care fraud (violations of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 1347). The DRB found that this conduct violated New Jersey RPC 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation).

The Court ordered respondent to show cause why the Court's Order accepting his resignation without prejudice should not be vacated and why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. The Court determined that the appropriate period of suspension should be retroactive to June 9, 2008, the date of respondent's sentencing, and issued the order described below.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should vacate the Order accepting respondent's resignation without prejudice.
2. Whether respondent should be disbarred or otherwise disciplined as a result of his federal guilty plea to mail fraud and health care fraud.
3. What form and duration of discipline is appropriate (specifically, whether a three-year suspension is appropriate).
4. Whether any imposed suspension should be made retroactive to the date of respondent's federal sentencing (June 9, 2008).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning, as reflected in the Order, proceeds from the DRB's findings and the federal criminal adjudication. The DRB concluded that respondent's guilty plea to federal counts of mail fraud and health care fraud constituted misconduct that, under New Jersey disciplinary standards, violated RPC 8.4(b) and RPC 8.4(c). Based on that determination, the DRB recommended final discipline under Rule 1:20-13(c).

The Court required respondent to show cause as to why his prior resignation (filed June 29, 2007) should not be vacated and why further discipline (including possible disbarment) should not be imposed in light of the federal guilty plea. After considering the matter, and determining that good cause existed to impose discipline, the Court adopted the DRB's recommendation of a three-year suspension and fixed the effective start date of the suspension as June 9, 2008 (the date of respondent's federal sentencing). The Order then imposed ancillary obligations consistent with the Rules governing attorney discipline in New Jersey, including compliance with Rule 1:20-20 (procedures for suspended attorneys), making the disciplinary record a permanent part of respondent's file, and requiring reimbursement to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs and actual expenses pursuant to Rule 1:20-17.

The Court explicitly stated that the imposed suspension does not affect respondent's June 29, 2007 resignation and that any readmission to the bar would be governed by Rule 1:24.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Jordan B. Luber is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years, effective June 9, 2008, and until the further Order of the Court.

Implications and direct consequences of the Court's Order:

• The three-year suspension is retroactive to June 9, 2008 (the date of respondent's sentencing).
• The suspension does not alter or nullify respondent's previous resignation from the New Jersey bar (resignation filed June 29, 2007).
• Any readmission to the bar by respondent must comply with Rule 1:24.
• Respondent must comply with Rule 1:20-20, the rule addressing duties and procedures applicable to suspended attorneys.
• The entire record of this disciplinary matter will be made a permanent part of respondent's attorney file in New Jersey.
• Respondent must reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of the matter, as provided by Rule 1:20-17.

The opinion does not articulate any broader doctrinal holdings or establish new precedent beyond the disciplinary action imposed; it applies the DRB recommendation and existing disciplinary rules to the facts of this case.