PATERSON — The New Jersey Supreme Court disciplined Paterson Municipal Judge Cecilia Sardina Guzman with a public censure last week for hearing city cases while she was ineligible to practice law.
It's the second time the judge has been rebuked by the state's highest court. Guzman previously came under censure from the Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Review Board for lapses in her private law practice in handling two divorce cases.
The censure announced last week — essentially a public reprimand — said Guzman violated codes of judicial conduct, but it did not require her removal from her role as one of Paterson’s judges. City officials could not be reached for comment about Guzman’s status in the Municipal Court.
Her lawyer, Robert Ramsey, said Guzman has decided to give up her private law practice in order to focus on her work as a city judge.
“She’s thrilled to put this behind her and move on with her professional life,” Ramsey said.
Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh said in February 2021 that Guzman's tenure was under review.
“We will let this matter continue in its proper course," he said at the time. "Judge Guzman is entitled to due process and a fair hearing, and we respect her rights in that regard.”
“To date,” the mayor added, “there has been no known impact or effect on Paterson Municipal Court cases or operations. We will continue to monitor the progress of this case.”
Guzman’s salary as a city judge is $45,900, according to recent payroll records. She was appointed to the position in 2014. She is one of six municipal judges in Paterson.
She previously served in the same role in Dover in Morris County. Her lawyer said she was replaced in Dover as part of the changing of the political guard in that town’s municipal government.
Guzman lost her eligibility to practice law from Oct. 22, 2018, until Oct. 17, 2019, because she failed to properly register a trust fund used to deposit clients' money, according to court records. In February 2021, she filed a three-page response with the Supreme Court’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct in which she admitted all 20 claims made by the state Supreme Court panel in its two-count disciplinary complaint.
Ramsey said Guzman had not known about her ineligibility to practice law and properly registered the trust fund within 48 hours of finding out to get her status restored.
Guzman has been the target of double-barrel disciplinary proceedings. In addition to the complaint by the Judicial Conduct committee, she also has been censured by the Supreme Court's Disciplinary Review Board, which oversees complaints about lawyers' conduct and ethics.
The
review board decision said Guzman committed "gross neglect," "lack of
diligence" and "failure to communicate with the client" in those cases.
The decision also cited "recordkeeping violations and negligent
misappropriation of client funds."
No comments:
Post a Comment