In re Holland

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Holland

753 A.2d 648, 164 N.J. 246, 2000 N.J. LEXIS 672

DecidedJune 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 753 A.2d 648 (In re Holland) 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 Holland, 753 A.2d 648, 164 N.J. 246, 2000 N.J. LEXIS 672 (N.J. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision concluding that ANTOINETTE HOLLAND of VOO[247]*247RHEES, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1993, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.15(e) (failure to keep property that is in dispute separate until the dispute is resolved), RPC 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of tribunal), RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6 (recordkeeping violations), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTOINETTE HOLLAND 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

ORDERED 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 filed with the Court its decision concluding that ANTOINETTE HOLLAND of VOO[247]*247RHEES, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1993, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.15(e) (failure to keep property that is in dispute separate until the dispute is resolved), RPC 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of tribunal), RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6 (recordkeeping violations), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANTOINETTE HOLLAND 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

ORDERED 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)

753 A.2d 648, 164 N.J. 246, 2000 N.J. LEXIS 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-holland-nj-2000.