In re Juman

191 A.3d 613, 234 N.J. 431
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided August 2, 2018·No. D-141 September Term 2017; 081235·Published

Opinion

**431CORRECTED ORDER

This matter have been duly presented pursuant to Rule 1:20-10(b), following the granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 18-082, of STEPHEN F. JUMAN, formerly of EDISON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1967;

**432And the District VIII Ethics Committee and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 1.5(b) (failure to communicate to the client in writing, the basis or rate of the fee);

And the parties having agreed that respondent's conduct violated RPC 1.5(b), and that said conduct warrants an admonition or lesser discipline;)

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined because respondent's misconduct was de minimus, and that no discipline need be imposed;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order in accordance with Rule 1:20-16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that no discipline be imposed on STEPHEN F. JUMAN, formerly of EDISON.

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

In re Juman, 191 A.3d 613, 234 N.J. 431 (N.J. 2018).

191 A.3d 613 (In re Juman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.