In re Hankin

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Hankin

683 A.2d 554, 146 N.J. 525, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1100

DecidedOctober 21, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 683 A.2d 554 (In re Hankin) 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 Hankin, 683 A.2d 554, 146 N.J. 525, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1100 (N.J. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on June 27, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that LOWEN K. HANKIN, formerly of LAWRENCEVILLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1992, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) by issuing to a purchaser of a boat from respondent’s family business a receipt showing a false amount paid for the boat, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that LOWEN K. HANKIN 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

[526]*526ORDERED 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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on June 27, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that LOWEN K. HANKIN, formerly of LAWRENCEVILLE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1992, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation) by issuing to a purchaser of a boat from respondent’s family business a receipt showing a false amount paid for the boat, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that LOWEN K. HANKIN 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

[526]*526ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 A.2d 554, 146 N.J. 525, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hankin-nj-1996.