CORRECTION/UPDATED
GLOUCESTER CITY, NJ (JANUARY 9, 2023)(CNBNewsnet)–Longtime Gloucester City attorney Mark Ford is again in trouble with the New Jersey Bar. As a result of his latest violation, he will lose his law license for one year, effective today, Monday, January 9.
Ford was admitted to the New Jersey Bar in 1983.
The NJ Supreme Court passed the ruling on his most recent violation in September 2022. The decision was filed on December 7, 2022, with the Clerk of the Supreme Court,
The Disciplinary Review Board concluded that Mark William Ford of Gloucester City should be suspended from the practice of law effective today for one year for the following reasons.
Unethical conduct in violation of RPC 3.1 (commencing a proceeding without a basis in law or fact)
RPC 3.3(a)(1) (making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal)
RPC 8.4 (c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation)
The Disciplinary Review Board further determined that on the respondent’s reinstatement to practice law, he should be required to practice under supervision for two years.
Ford was ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter. The Honorable Stuart Rabner, Chief Justice, Trenton, signed the order.
Ford’s Office at 4.5 North Broadway, Gloucester City, NJ image courtesy of Google Streetview
As mentioned, the Gloucester City lawyer, whose office is located at 4.5 North Broadway, has been in trouble with the New Jersey Bar on numerous occasions. In 1998, he was reprimanded after he falsely certified, at least ten times, to the Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance that he was entitled to unemployment benefits when, during the relevant time, he was self-employed.
In 2002, he was admonished for lack of diligence for failure to file claim petitions in his client’s workers’ compensation claims against her former employers and for failure to communicate with her about the status of her matters reasonably.
Ford was reprimanded again in 2009 for a conflict of interest and failure to withdraw from the representation. In that case, he filed an answer to a civil complaint at a time when his interests were directly adverse to his client’s. Afterward, he tried to negotiate separate settlements to his client’s detriment. He also failed to advise his client, in writing, to seek advice from independent counsel and failed to inform the client about a potential malpractice claim against him.
In 2011, Ford was criticized for issuing trust account checks against uncollected funds, negligent misappropriation of trust funds, and record-keeping violations.
Ford came before the Ethics Committee in 2013. The violation involved a bankruptcy matter. The local attorney admitted he failed to communicate with a client and explain an issue sufficiently to enable a client to make informed decisions about the representation and failed to communicate the basis or rate of the fee in writing.
The bankruptcy court ordered the respondent to refund the fees she had paid to him, which he did.
The Disciplinary Oversight Committee (DEC) recommended that the Ethics Committee impose a reprimand or lesser discipline. As a result, the Committee determined that a censure was the appropriate discipline.
