In re Durant

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Durant

56 A.3d 866, 212 N.J. 478, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1262

DecidedDecember 6, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.3d 866 (In re Durant) 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 Durant, 56 A.3d 866, 212 N.J. 478, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1262 (N.J. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-117, concluding that AURELIA M. DURANT of STOCKBRIDGE, GEORGIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1999, should be admonished for violating RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client) and RPC 1.4(e) (failure to explain a matter so as to permit client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that AURELIA M. DURANT is hereby admonished; 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 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 12-117, concluding that AURELIA M. DURANT of STOCKBRIDGE, GEORGIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1999, should be admonished for violating RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client) and RPC 1.4(e) (failure to explain a matter so as to permit client to make informed decisions regarding the representation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that AURELIA M. DURANT is hereby admonished; 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 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 866, 212 N.J. 478, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-durant-nj-2012.