UPDATE Nov 7th, 2018, Frank Catania Disbarred, Birds Of A Feather #RHONJ

UPDATE: This post is from 2017. Frank’s disbarment is brought up on the Season 9 premiere episode of RHONJ. It wasn’t a secret, attorneys are disbarred by the New Jersey Supreme Court and are public record.

Dolores Catania’s ex-husband and current roomie was disbarred by the New Jersey Supreme Court on November 17th.

I put birds of a feather in the title as in “birds of a feather stick together” but in this case pigs in a sty is more accurate.

For those of you who’ve been around RHONJ on Twitter for awhile and those of you who are aware of the Alt Siggy / Faux Flicker drama, can you guess why Frank Catania was disbarred?

Yup, misappropriation of funds. Imagine that!

Misappropriation of funds is just a legal way of saying stealing. The law divides the crime of theft into different categories. In the case of misappropriation, that’s when you give a lawyer money to hold in trust, like escrow on a house you’re trying to buy, and instead of holding the money for you, the lawyer spends it.

In Frank’s case, it was the “knowing misappropriation” of client funds, which means it wasn’t a bookkeeping error or some kind of mistake. Frank knew he was spending the money his client had entrusted to him. You can see that in his disbarment order down below.

Violating your integrity to spend money that was entrusted to you for safekeeping is such an incredible betrayal not only of your client, but of family, friends, and most of all, yourself.

So yes, greedy pig is a more apt description than a bird. And like a pig in a sty, if you continue to wallow in the mud it will eventually rub off on those around you. It’s nice that Dolores is letting him stay at her house but she’d be doing herself a lot of good if she put more space between them.

That little clique in New Jersey now consists of two lawyers disbarred for the knowing misappropriation of funds… Siggy rants often about people with “entitlement issues”, she doesn’t have to look too far to see real life examples of that.

Dolores needs to pick better husbands and better friends.

The disbarment order is below.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
IN RE: FRANK CATANIA, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (Attorney No. 012501991)
Decided: November 17, 2017

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 17-056, recommending that FRANK CATANIA, JR., of NORTH HALEDON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1991, be disbarred for the knowing misappropriation of client and escrow funds, conduct that violates RPC 1.15(a)(knowing misappropriation), RPC 8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and the principles of In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451 (1979), and In re Hollendonner, 102 N.J. 21 (1985);

And FRANK CATANIA, JR., having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that FRANK CATANIA, JR., be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys;

ORDERED that FRANK CATANIA, JR., be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing or hereinafter deposited in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by FRANK CATANIA, JR., pursuant to Rule 1:21-6 be restrained from disbursement except on application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this Court;
and it is further

ORDERED that FRANK CATANIA, JR., comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.