In re Hasbrouck

891 A.2d 614, 186 N.J. 72, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 44
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 22, 2006
StatusPublished

This text of 891 A.2d 614 (In re Hasbrouck) 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 Hasbrouck, 891 A.2d 614, 186 N.J. 72, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 44 (N.J. 2006).

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 05-279, concluding that BRUCE C. HASBROUCK of WOODBURY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 1.15(a) (failure to safeguard funds), RPC 3.3(a)(5) (failure to disclose to a tribunal a material fact with knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be misled by such failure), RPC 3.4(c) (knowing disobedience of an obligation under the rules of a tribunal), RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit of misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BRUCE C. HASBROUCK is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective March 20, 2006; 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 1:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20-20(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(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further

[73]*73ORDERED 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
891 A.2d 614, 186 N.J. 72, 2006 N.J. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hasbrouck-nj-2006.