In re Beck

600 A.2d 1210, 126 N.J. 514, 1992 N.J. LEXIS 1467
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Beck. Read the opinion of the Court — 118 N.J. 561
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 30, 1992·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The reinstatement to the practice of law of BASIL D. BECK, JR., of BRIDGETON having been conditioned on his continued employment with the firm of Yasser, Spitalniek, Bloom & Mazin, as set forth in this Court’s Order of December 13, 1991,

And the association of said BASIL D. BECK, JR., with the firm of Vasser, Spitalniek, Bloom & Mazin having been terminated, effective January 28, 1992,

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BASIL D. BECK, JR., is suspended from the practice of law, effective January 28, 1992, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1:20-12, Joseph W. Veight, III, Esquire, and Theresa Christian-Hunsberger, Esquire, are designated trustees of the practice of said Basil D. Beck, Jr., effective immediately and until further Order of the Court and, in that capacity, shall see to the notification of clients and the distribution of open files as soon as may be practicable.

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

In re Beck, 600 A.2d 1210, 126 N.J. 514, 1992 N.J. LEXIS 1467 (N.J. 1992).

600 A.2d 1210 (In re Beck) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.