In Re Howell

89 A.2d 652, 10 N.J. 139, 1952 N.J. LEXIS 232
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJune 26, 1952
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 89 A.2d 652 (In Re Howell) 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 Howell, 89 A.2d 652, 10 N.J. 139, 1952 N.J. LEXIS 232 (N.J. 1952).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Respect for the law is the keystone of our democracy. An attorney by tradition is an appropriate advocate of this truism and it behooves him to act accordingly and to exercise the utmost restraint under all circumstances. This is the theme of the Canons of Professional Ethics, explicitly set forth in the preamble thereto. And Canon 39 provides, inter alia, that the lawyer “should strive at all times to uphold the honor and to maintain the dignity of the profession and to improve not only the law but the administration of justice”; in Canon 33 he is admonished “to observe the statute law” and advised that he “will find his highest honor in a deserved reputation for fidelity to public trust and to public duty.” It is axiomatic that it is extremely desirable that respectability of the bar should be maintained.

In the present case the respondent committed assault and battery and subsequently pleaded non vult thereto in criminal proceedings. An attorney’s responsibility is to the courts, the profession and the public, and his misconduct may [141]*141be of such a nature as to engender disrespect for the law which is his basic trust. No criticism of his professional conduct has been otherwise made.

The respondent violated the Canons of Professional Ethics. In the circumstances of the case he should be suspended from the practice of the law for a period of sis months and until further order of this court.

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

Related

In Re Pena
753 A.2d 633 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2000)
Matter of Roth
577 A.2d 490 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1990)
In re X.
577 A.2d 139 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1990)
Matter of X
577 A.2d 139 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1990)
Matter of Yaccarino
564 A.2d 1184 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1989)
In Re Shamy
282 A.2d 402 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1971)
In Re Belluscio
184 A.2d 864 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1962)
In Re Sawyer
360 U.S. 622 (Supreme Court, 1959)
In Re Genser
105 A.2d 829 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1954)
In Re Howell
89 A.2d 652 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.2d 652, 10 N.J. 139, 1952 N.J. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-howell-nj-1952.