1. Peter James Commarano, an attorney, was charged with violating New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) 8.4(b) and 8.4(c) for accepting $25,000 in illicit cash campaign contributions from a cooperating witness in exchange for his future official assistance and influence in Hoboken government matters pertaining to the witness's real estate development projects. 2. The RPCs Commarano was charged with violating prohibit a lawyer from committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer, and from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. 3. The Disciplinary Review Board

1. Nicole Williams
Legal Ethics
Project3 Part 1
ProfessorMayer
12-06-2014
Case 1: Peter James Commarano
1. The factsthat led to the ethicalallegations:
a. From April2009 toJuly 2009, inHudson County, in the
district ofNew Jersey. The defendant knowingly and willingly
conspired and agreed with MichaelSchaffer, Edward Cheatam,
JackShaw his consultant and along with others to obstruct,
delay and affect interstatecommercebyextortionunder color of
officialright, that is, by obtaining illicit cash campaign
contributionthat werepaid and to be paid by another with that
person’s consent, in exchangefor defendant Peter
Commarano’sfutureofficialassistance, actionand influencein
Hoboken Government matters.
b. It was the object of the conspiracythat defendant Peter
Commaranoacceptedand agreeto accept illicit cash campaign
contributionsfrom the cooperatingwitnessinexchangefor
defendantsfutureofficialassistance, actionand influencein

2. Nicole Williams
Legal Ethics
Project3 Part 1
ProfessorMayer
12-06-2014
Hoboken Government matterspertainingtothe cooperating
real estatedevelopment projects
c. It was part of the conspiracythat thedefendant accepted a total
of approximately$25,000 ($5,000 onApril27th, 2009, $5,000
on May8th, 2009, $5,000 onMay 19th, 2009 and $10,000on
July 16th, 2009) inillicit cash campaigncontributionsfrom the
cooperating witnesswhich werepaid todefendant through
MichaelSchaffer, Edward Cheatam and theconsultant
2. Which R.P.C.’s the attorneywerecharged with violating?
a. The R.P.C.’s that the defendant violated were:
i. 8.4(b)- criminalact that reflectsadverselyon a lawyers
honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer
ii. 8.4(c) - Conduct involving dishonesty. Fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation
3. The requirementsofthe R.P.C’s involved:
a. R.P.C-8.4(b)-thelawyer shall not commit a criminalact that
reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthinessor
fitness as a lawyer

3. Nicole Williams
Legal Ethics
Project3 Part 1
ProfessorMayer
12-06-2014
b. The lawyer shall not engagein conduct involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation
c. The lawyer shall not engagein conduct that is prejudicialtothe
administrationofjustice
d. The lawyer shall not stateor implyan abilitytoinfluence
improperlya government agencyor officialor to achieveresults
by means that violatethe Rules of ProfessionalConduct or
other law
e. The lawyer shall not knowingly assist a judgeor judicialofficer
in conduct that isa violationof the Code of JudicialConduct or
other law
f. The lawyer shall not engagein professional capacity, inconduct
involving discrimination(except employment discrimination
unless resulting in a finalagency or judicialdetermination)
becauseof race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation,
nationalorigin, language, maritalstatus, socioeconomic status,
or handicap wheretheconduct is intended or likely to cause
harm
4. The findingsof the D.R.B

4. Nicole Williams
Legal Ethics
Project3 Part 1
ProfessorMayer
12-06-2014
a. Attorneystaking bribesaspublic officersand those giving
bribesto peddle influenceare unlikely to find refugein such
exceptions. Going forward, anyattorneywho is convicted of
Officialbriberyor extortionshould expect tolose his license
To practicelaw inNew Jersey.
b. We disagreewith theDRB majoritythat the seriousnessof
respondent’s professionalmisconduct ismitigated becausehe
betrayed hisoffice -- even before he assumed thepositionof
mayor -- in a federalsting operation. Respondent accepted
bribemoniesthat were not reported in accordancewith state
electionlaws and that were used to gainan advantageina close
race.
c. That respondent did not purchasea car or some other item
with the illicit moniesbut rather used those moniesto win a
professionalprize -- thepositionof mayor -- does not render
his conduct less blameworthy. Moreover, we do not view
respondent as a passive player in this corruptionscheme.
d. Respondent did not display any timidityor hesitationabout
accepting bribesinexchangefor giving preferentialtreatment

5. Nicole Williams
Legal Ethics
Project3 Part 1
ProfessorMayer
12-06-2014
to a developer. Respondent presented a very clear pictureto
all those present at those meetingsat the diner: he was open
to selling favors in the performanceof his officialduties.
That respondent cannot be characterized asorchestrating the
scheme in no way detractsfrom hisculpability.

6. Nicole Williams
Legal Ethics
Project3 Part 1
ProfessorMayer
12-06-2014