In re Arntsen

108 A.3d 1275, 220 N.J. 585, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 268
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 6, 2015
StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.3d 1275 (In re Arntsen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Arntsen, 108 A.3d 1275, 220 N.J. 585, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 268 (N.J. 2015).

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-185, recommending that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule l:20-13(c), DOUGLAS R. ARNTSEN, formerly of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2003, should be disbarred based on respondent’s guilty plea in the Supreme Court of New York to three counts of grand larceny (first degree), in violation of New York Penal Law § 155.40(2), and one count of scheme to defraud (first degree), in violation of New York Penal Law § 190.65(l)(b), conduct that in New Jersey violates RPC 1.15(a) (knowing misappropriation of funds), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and the principles of In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451, 409 A.2d 1153 (1979) and In re Hollendonner, 102 N.J. 21, 504 A.2d 1174 (1985);

And DOUGLAS R. ARNTSEN having failed to appear on the order directing him to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DOUGLAS R. ARNTSEN be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys;

ORDERED that DOUGLAS R. ARNTSEN be and hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that DOUGLAS R. ARNTSEN comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with disbarred attorneys; and it is further

[586]*586ORDERED 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Wilson
409 A.2d 1153 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1979)
Matter of Hollendonner
504 A.2d 1174 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
108 A.3d 1275, 220 N.J. 585, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-arntsen-nj-2015.