In re Dahl

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Dahl

56 A.3d 865, 212 N.J. 477, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1261

DecidedDecember 6, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.3d 865 (In re Dahl) 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 Dahl, 56 A.3d 865, 212 N.J. 477, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1261 (N.J. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-108, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule l:20-4(f) (default by respondent), that TERENCE JOHN DAHL of RIDGEWOOD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2003, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.4(b) (failure to comply with client’s reasonable requests for information), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that TERENCE JOHN DAHL is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[478]*478ORDERED 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 expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

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 12-108, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule l:20-4(f) (default by respondent), that TERENCE JOHN DAHL of RIDGEWOOD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2003, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.4(b) (failure to comply with client’s reasonable requests for information), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that TERENCE JOHN DAHL is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[478]*478ORDERED 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 expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.3d 865, 212 N.J. 477, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dahl-nj-2012.