In re Fusco

159 A.3d 983, 228 N.J. 159, 2017 WL 1102858, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 320
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 24, 2017·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-020, concluding that FRANK C. FUSCO of CLIFTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1 (a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b)(failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of the matter) RPC 1.5(b)(failure to communicate in writing the basis or rate of the fee), and RPC 5.4(a) (sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that FRANK C. FUSCO 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 and actual [160] 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

In re Fusco, 159 A.3d 983, 228 N.J. 159, 2017 WL 1102858, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 320 (N.J. 2017).

159 A.3d 983 (In re Fusco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.