In re Daniel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Daniel

683 A.2d 195, 146 N.J. 490, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1075

DecidedOctober 17, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 683 A.2d 195 (In re Daniel) 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 Daniel, 683 A.2d 195, 146 N.J. 490, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1075 (N.J. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on Jupe 13, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that CORNELIUS W. DANIEL of BRIELLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State [491]*491in 1969, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep client adequately informed), and RPC 5.1 (failure to supervise an attorney employee), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CORNELIUS W. DANIEL is hereby reprimanded; 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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on Jupe 13, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that CORNELIUS W. DANIEL of BRIELLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State [491]*491in 1969, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep client adequately informed), and RPC 5.1 (failure to supervise an attorney employee), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CORNELIUS W. DANIEL is hereby reprimanded; 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 A.2d 195, 146 N.J. 490, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-nj-1996.