In re Carlitz

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Carlitz

92 A.3d 1163, 218 N.J. 2, 2014 WL 2993664, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 657

DecidedJuly 3, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.3d 1163 (In re Carlitz) 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 Carlitz, 92 A.3d 1163, 218 N.J. 2, 2014 WL 2993664, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 657 (N.J. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 13-098, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-14, DEBBIE ANN CARLITZ, formerly of NORTH BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, should be censured based on discipline imposed in Pennsylvania that in New Jersey constitutes violations of RPC 1.4(c) (failure to explain a matter to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), RPC 1.15(a) (failure to safeguard client funds), RPC 5.3(a) (failure to supervise a nonlawyer), RPC 5.3(b) (a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer), RPC 5.5(a) (practicing law while ineligible to do so), RPC 7.1(a) (making a false communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services), RPC 7.5(a) (using a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates RPC 7.1), RPC 8.4(a) (violating the RPCs), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DEBBIE ANN CARLITZ is hereby censured; 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 [3]*3expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17; and it is further

ORDERED that the administrative costs and expenses respondent paid to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee on the Order of this Court filed February 11, 2009 in DRB 08-250 (D-60-08), which was vacated by Order of this Court filed this date, shall be credited to the costs and expenses to be assessed in DRB 13-098 (D-35-13; 073640).

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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 13-098, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-14, DEBBIE ANN CARLITZ, formerly of NORTH BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, should be censured based on discipline imposed in Pennsylvania that in New Jersey constitutes violations of RPC 1.4(c) (failure to explain a matter to the extent necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), RPC 1.15(a) (failure to safeguard client funds), RPC 5.3(a) (failure to supervise a nonlawyer), RPC 5.3(b) (a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyer’s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer), RPC 5.5(a) (practicing law while ineligible to do so), RPC 7.1(a) (making a false communication about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services), RPC 7.5(a) (using a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates RPC 7.1), RPC 8.4(a) (violating the RPCs), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DEBBIE ANN CARLITZ is hereby censured; 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 [3]*3expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17; and it is further

ORDERED that the administrative costs and expenses respondent paid to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee on the Order of this Court filed February 11, 2009 in DRB 08-250 (D-60-08), which was vacated by Order of this Court filed this date, shall be credited to the costs and expenses to be assessed in DRB 13-098 (D-35-13; 073640).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.3d 1163, 218 N.J. 2, 2014 WL 2993664, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carlitz-nj-2014.