In re Halbfish

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Halbfish

73 A.3d 1243, 215 N.J. 493, 2013 WL 5270316, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 850

DecidedSeptember 18, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.3d 1243 (In re Halbfish) 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 Halbfish, 73 A.3d 1243, 215 N.J. 493, 2013 WL 5270316, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 850 (N.J. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-123, DRB 12-373, and DRB 12-374, concluding that MICHAEL D. HALBFISH of PHILLIPSBURG, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1997, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for unethical conduct in five matters, including violations of RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.1(b) (pattern of neglect); RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), and RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that on reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to practice law under supervision for a period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL D. HALBFISH is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, and until the further Order of the Court, effective October 18, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; 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 [494]*494Rule l: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(e); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; 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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-123, DRB 12-373, and DRB 12-374, concluding that MICHAEL D. HALBFISH of PHILLIPSBURG, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1997, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for unethical conduct in five matters, including violations of RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.1(b) (pattern of neglect); RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), and RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that on reinstatement to practice, respondent should be required to practice law under supervision for a period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL D. HALBFISH is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, and until the further Order of the Court, effective October 18, 2013; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; 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 [494]*494Rule l: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(e); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.3d 1243, 215 N.J. 493, 2013 WL 5270316, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-halbfish-nj-2013.