In the legal profession, the “knowing misappropriation” of client funds is considered the ultimate breach of trust. For James Charles Bailey (Attorney ID: 025581993), a multi-decade career spanning multiple jurisdictions ended with a permanent disbarment by consent in New Jersey.
Effective July 11, 2025, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ordered that Bailey’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys. This ruling was the final domino in a series of disciplinary actions that began in Washington, D.C., and spread across the Atlantic coast.
The Core Misconduct: Reckless Misappropriation
The disbarment of James Charles Bailey (Docket No. 25-163) was not an isolated incident but a result of reciprocal discipline following his misconduct in the District of Columbia. The Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) investigations revealed a pattern of severe financial violations:
-
IOLTA Mismanagement: While a partner at a firm in D.C., Bailey was responsible for an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account (IOLTA). In early 2018, he allegedly engaged in “intentional or reckless misappropriation” by transferring funds from the IOLTA to cover shortfalls in his firm’s operating account.
-
Commingling Funds: Bailey repeatedly moved money between client trust accounts and firm accounts, essentially using client funds as an unauthorized line of credit to keep his business afloat.
-
Failure to Keep Records: The investigation found that Bailey failed to maintain complete records of IOLTA account funds for five years following the end of representation, a violation of the fundamental duty to safeguard property.
A Multi-State Disciplinary Chain Reaction
The 2025 New Jersey disbarment was the culmination of a “domino effect” across several jurisdictions where Bailey was licensed:
-
District of Columbia (2023): Facing charges of reckless misappropriation, Bailey executed an affidavit consenting to disbarment from the D.C. Bar in October 2023.
-
Pennsylvania (2024): On March 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a reciprocal disbarment order, citing the D.C. findings as proof of unfitness to practice law.
-
New Jersey (2025): The New Jersey Supreme Court finalized the process on July 11, 2025, accepting Bailey’s consent to disbarment to protect the New Jersey public.
The Financial Fallout and Client Protection
The Court’s order carries significant administrative and financial mandates:
-
Asset Restraint: All funds in New Jersey financial institutions maintained by Bailey were ordered to be transferred to the Clerk of the Superior Court and held in the Superior Court Trust Fund.
-
Practice Injunction: Bailey is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law, providing legal advice, or identifying himself as an attorney in New Jersey.
-
Reimbursement: He was ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for the administrative costs associated with the investigation and prosecution of his case.
Recourse for Harmed Clients
Clients who suffered a direct financial loss due to Bailey’s dishonest conduct may be eligible for reimbursement through the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection. To qualify, claimants must typically demonstrate that the loss was due to dishonest conduct (like misappropriation) rather than mere negligence.
Conclusion: Protecting the Public Trust
The disbarment of James Charles Bailey serves as a stark reminder that the duty to safeguard client funds is absolute. Whether in D.C., Pennsylvania, or New Jersey, the legal system has zero tolerance for attorneys who treat their trust accounts as personal or business funds. For those seeking to verify the current standing of a legal professional, the official New Jersey Disciplinary Review Board remains the most reliable source for up-to-date public records.
