In re Glatman

922 A.2d 707, 191 N.J. 84, 2007 N.J. LEXIS 598
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 24, 2007·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-300, concluding that ARTHUR GLATMAN of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1975, should be reprimanded for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3(lack of diligence), RPC 1.15(a)(negligent misappropriation), RPC 1.15(b)(failure to disburse funds promptly), RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6 (recordkeeping violations), and RPC 8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ARTHUR GLATMAN 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 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 Glatman, 922 A.2d 707, 191 N.J. 84, 2007 N.J. LEXIS 598 (N.J. 2007).

922 A.2d 707 (In re Glatman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.