In re Ellis

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Ellis

872 A.2d 780, 183 N.J. 227

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 12, 2005

DocketATTORNEY NO. 011271974

StatusPublished

This text of 872 A.2d 780 (In re Ellis) 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 Ellis, 872 A.2d 780, 183 N.J. 227 (N.J. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-429, concluding that DANIEL ELLIS of VERONA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And DANIEL ELLIS having consented to be temporarily suspended from practice until the conclusion of all ethics matters pending against him, which temporary suspension was Ordered by the Court on May 22, 2003, and which continues at this time;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DANIEL ELLIS is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law until the conclusion of all ethics matters pending against him and that he continue to 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 1:20 — 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

[228]*228ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter; 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.

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 04-429, concluding that DANIEL ELLIS of VERONA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1974, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And DANIEL ELLIS having consented to be temporarily suspended from practice until the conclusion of all ethics matters pending against him, which temporary suspension was Ordered by the Court on May 22, 2003, and which continues at this time;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DANIEL ELLIS is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law until the conclusion of all ethics matters pending against him and that he continue to 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 1:20 — 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

[228]*228ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter; 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

872 A.2d 780, 183 N.J. 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ellis-nj-2005.