In re DiCiurcio

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re DiCiurcio

51 A.3d 117, 212 N.J. 109, 2012 WL 4348569, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 951

DecidedSeptember 20, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.3d 117 (In re DiCiurcio) 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 DiCiurcio, 51 A.3d 117, 212 N.J. 109, 2012 WL 4348569, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 951 (N.J. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-026, concluding that JOHN DAVID DiCIURCIO of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1997, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 7.1(a) (prohibiting false or misleading communications about the lawyer, the lawyer’s services, or any matter in which the lawyer has or seeks a professional involvement), Attorney Advertising Guideline 2(a) (March 2, 2005) (requiring the phrase “ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT” to be at least two font sizes larger than the largest size used in the advertising text), and Opinion No. 35 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, 182 N.J.L.J. 792 (November 21, 2005) (requiring attorney advertising letter to state: “If you are already represented by counsel in this matter, please disregard this advertisement”); and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN DAVID DiCIURCIO 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

[110]*110ORDERED 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 12-026, concluding that JOHN DAVID DiCIURCIO of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1997, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 7.1(a) (prohibiting false or misleading communications about the lawyer, the lawyer’s services, or any matter in which the lawyer has or seeks a professional involvement), Attorney Advertising Guideline 2(a) (March 2, 2005) (requiring the phrase “ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT” to be at least two font sizes larger than the largest size used in the advertising text), and Opinion No. 35 of the Committee on Attorney Advertising, 182 N.J.L.J. 792 (November 21, 2005) (requiring attorney advertising letter to state: “If you are already represented by counsel in this matter, please disregard this advertisement”); and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN DAVID DiCIURCIO 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

[110]*110ORDERED 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)

51 A.3d 117, 212 N.J. 109, 2012 WL 4348569, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-diciurcio-nj-2012.