In re Hartmann

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Hartmann

667 A.2d 669, 142 N.J. 587, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1646

DecidedNovember 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 667 A.2d 669 (In re Hartmann) 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 Hartmann, 667 A.2d 669, 142 N.J. 587, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1646 (N.J. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having on September 19, 1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that JOHN A. HART-MANN, III, of PRINCETON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), RPC 3.5(c) (engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal) and RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN A. HARTMANN, III, 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

[588]*588ORDERED 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 having on September 19, 1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that JOHN A. HART-MANN, III, of PRINCETON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), RPC 3.5(c) (engaging in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal) and RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN A. HARTMANN, III, 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

[588]*588ORDERED 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)

667 A.2d 669, 142 N.J. 587, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hartmann-nj-1995.