In re Hunt

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Hunt

72 A.3d 244, 215 N.J. 300, 2013 WL 4777316, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 837

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedSeptember 5, 2013

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 A.3d 244 (In re Hunt) 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 Hunt, 72 A.3d 244, 215 N.J. 300, 2013 WL 4777316, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 837 (N.J. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 13-026, concluding that RONALD C. HUNT of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), RPC 1.4(c) (failure to explain a matter to the extent necessary for client to make informed decisions about representation), RPC 1.7(b) (concurrent conflict of interest), Rule 1:21-6 and RPC 1.15(d) (record-keeping violations), RPC 1.16(a)(1) (lawyer shall not represent a client or shall withdraw from representation if representation will result in RPC violation), RPC 1.16(d) (failure to protect client’s rights on termination of representation), RPC 8.1(a) (false statements in connection with disciplinary matter), and RPC 8.4(c) [301]*301(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RONALD C. HUNT 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 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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 13-026, concluding that RONALD C. HUNT of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), RPC 1.4(c) (failure to explain a matter to the extent necessary for client to make informed decisions about representation), RPC 1.7(b) (concurrent conflict of interest), Rule 1:21-6 and RPC 1.15(d) (record-keeping violations), RPC 1.16(a)(1) (lawyer shall not represent a client or shall withdraw from representation if representation will result in RPC violation), RPC 1.16(d) (failure to protect client’s rights on termination of representation), RPC 8.1(a) (false statements in connection with disciplinary matter), and RPC 8.4(c) [301]*301(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RONALD C. HUNT 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.3d 244, 215 N.J. 300, 2013 WL 4777316, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hunt-nj-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack