In re Cotz

869 A.2d 877, 183 N.J. 23
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMarch 24, 2005
DocketATTORNEY NO. 010711974
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 869 A.2d 877 (In re Cotz) 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 Cotz, 869 A.2d 877, 183 N.J. 23 (N.J. 2005).

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-359, concluding that GEORGE J. COTZ of MAHWAH, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating RPC 1.15(a) (negligent misappropriation of trust funds), RPC 1.15(d) (recordkeeping violations), and RPC 1.8(a) (conflict of interest); and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GEORGE J. COTZ is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months and until the further Order of the Court, effective April 22, 2005; and it is further

[24]*24ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that he comply with Rule 1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule l:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall submit proof of his fitness to practice law, as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

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

Related

In re Cotz
28 A.D.3d 15 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
869 A.2d 877, 183 N.J. 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-cotz-nj-2005.