In re Harris

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Harris

589 A.2d 1353, 124 N.J. 29, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1532

DecidedMay 22, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 589 A.2d 1353 (In re Harris) 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 Harris, 589 A.2d 1353, 124 N.J. 29, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1532 (N.J. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Office of Attorney having petitioned the Court pursuant to Rule l:20-5(b) for the immediate temporary suspension of ANTHONY W. HARRIS of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTHONY W. HARRIS show cause before this Court on Thursday, June 6,1991, at 2:00 p.m., in the Supreme Court courtroom, Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, [30]*30why he should not be suspended from the practice of law and otherwise sanctioned pending the disposition of ethics proceedings against him, and, further, why the Office of Attorney Ethics should not be directed to take such protective action as may be appropriate pursuant to Rule 1:20 — 11(c); and it is further

ORDERED that David E. Johnson, Jr., Esquire, or his designee, present this matter to the Court.

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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Office of Attorney having petitioned the Court pursuant to Rule l:20-5(b) for the immediate temporary suspension of ANTHONY W. HARRIS of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1984, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTHONY W. HARRIS show cause before this Court on Thursday, June 6,1991, at 2:00 p.m., in the Supreme Court courtroom, Hughes Justice Complex, Trenton, [30]*30why he should not be suspended from the practice of law and otherwise sanctioned pending the disposition of ethics proceedings against him, and, further, why the Office of Attorney Ethics should not be directed to take such protective action as may be appropriate pursuant to Rule 1:20 — 11(c); and it is further

ORDERED that David E. Johnson, Jr., Esquire, or his designee, present this matter to the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 A.2d 1353, 124 N.J. 29, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harris-nj-1991.