In Re Halsted

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In Re Halsted

108 A.2d 266, 16 N.J. 219, 1954 N.J. LEXIS 213

DecidedOctober 18, 1954

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.2d 266 (In Re Halsted) 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 Halsted, 108 A.2d 266, 16 N.J. 219, 1954 N.J. LEXIS 213 (N.J. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Ethics and Grievance Committee of Passaic County has filed a presentment in which it has found the respondent, Charles Halsted, guilty of defalcation of clients’ funds in three instances. In addition to the complaints investigated by the committee a number of other charges of similar nature have been filed with the county prosecutor. It is said that his defalcations total approximately $180,000. The respondent has been indicted and has absconded and his whereabouts are unknown. Under these circumstances his name will be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counsellors of this court.

For disbarment — Chief Justice Vandebbilt, and Justices Hehee, Oliphant, Waoheneeld, Bueling, Jacobs and Beennan — -7.

Opposed — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The Ethics and Grievance Committee of Passaic County has filed a presentment in which it has found the respondent, Charles Halsted, guilty of defalcation of clients’ funds in three instances. In addition to the complaints investigated by the committee a number of other charges of similar nature have been filed with the county prosecutor. It is said that his defalcations total approximately $180,000. The respondent has been indicted and has absconded and his whereabouts are unknown. Under these circumstances his name will be stricken from the roll of attorneys and counsellors of this court.

For disbarment — Chief Justice Vandebbilt, and Justices Hehee, Oliphant, Waoheneeld, Bueling, Jacobs and Beennan — -7.

Opposed — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.2d 266, 16 N.J. 219, 1954 N.J. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-halsted-nj-1954.