In re Fucetola
This text of 686 A.2d 759 (In re Fucetola) 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.
Opinion
ORDER
The Disciplinary Review Board on June 27, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that RALPH FUCE-TOLA, III, of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1971, should be reprimanded for failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 1:21-6, in violation of RPC 1.15, as a result of which client funds were negligently misappropriated;
[256]*256And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should be required to retain the services of a bookkeeper and to file quarterly accounting reports with the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years;
And good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that RALPH FUCETOLA, III, is hereby reprimanded; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall retain a bookkeeper for his attorney recordkeeping responsibilities and on a schedule to be determined by the Office of Attorney Ethics, shall file quarterly audits of the accounts required to be maintained by Rule 1:21-6 with the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years and until further Order of the Court; 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
686 A.2d 759, 147 N.J. 255, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-fucetola-nj-1997.