In re Carracino

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Carracino

669 A.2d 816, 143 N.J. 140, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 22

DecidedJanuary 19, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 669 A.2d 816 (In re Carracino) 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 Carracino, 669 A.2d 816, 143 N.J. 140, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 22 (N.J. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having on September 11, 1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that ANTHONY F. CARRACINO of FORDS, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4 (failure to communicate), RPC 4.1(a) (making a false statement of fact), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and said ANTHONY F. CARRACINO having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTHONY F. CARRACINO is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[141]*141ORDERED 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having on September 11, 1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that ANTHONY F. CARRACINO of FORDS, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4 (failure to communicate), RPC 4.1(a) (making a false statement of fact), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), and said ANTHONY F. CARRACINO having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTHONY F. CARRACINO is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[141]*141ORDERED 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 A.2d 816, 143 N.J. 140, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-carracino-nj-1996.