In re Goldberg

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Goldberg

686 A.2d 1189, 147 N.J. 274, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 26

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 16, 1997·Published

Opinion

[275] ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on November 8, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that WILLIAM GOLDBERG of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1967, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.7, by engaging in a conflict of interest in the representation of clients, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WILLIAM GOLDBERG 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[275] ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on November 8, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that WILLIAM GOLDBERG of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1967, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.7, by engaging in a conflict of interest in the representation of clients, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WILLIAM GOLDBERG 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

In re Goldberg, 686 A.2d 1189, 147 N.J. 274, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 26 (N.J. 1997).

Pincite

686 A.2d 1189 (In re Goldberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.