In re Cosgrove

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Cosgrove

597 A.2d 84, 126 N.J. 280, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1333

DecidedOctober 21, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 597 A.2d 84 (In re Cosgrove) 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 Cosgrove, 597 A.2d 84, 126 N.J. 280, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1333 (N.J. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having recommended to this Court that EDWARD T. COSGROVE of PEQUANNOCK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1962, and who was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court dated March 8, 1988, be restored to the practice of law, and having further recommended that said practice be under the supervision of a proctor for a period of one year, and good cause appearing;

[281]*281It is ORDERED that EDWARD T. COSGROVE is hereby restored to the practice of law, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be required to practice under the supervision of a proctor appointed by the Office of Attorney Ethics pursuant to Administrative Guideline No. 28 for a period of one year and until further Order of the Court.

WITNESS, the Honorable Robert N. Wilentz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 16th day of October, 1991.

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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having recommended to this Court that EDWARD T. COSGROVE of PEQUANNOCK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1962, and who was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court dated March 8, 1988, be restored to the practice of law, and having further recommended that said practice be under the supervision of a proctor for a period of one year, and good cause appearing;

[281]*281It is ORDERED that EDWARD T. COSGROVE is hereby restored to the practice of law, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent be required to practice under the supervision of a proctor appointed by the Office of Attorney Ethics pursuant to Administrative Guideline No. 28 for a period of one year and until further Order of the Court.

WITNESS, the Honorable Robert N. Wilentz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 16th day of October, 1991.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 A.2d 84, 126 N.J. 280, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cosgrove-nj-1991.