In re Lord

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Lord

106 A.3d 478, 220 N.J. 339, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 32

DecidedJanuary 15, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.3d 478 (In re Lord) 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 Lord, 106 A.3d 478, 220 N.J. 339, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 32 (N.J. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 14-105, concluding that ESTELLE FLYNN LORD of GARWOOD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.6(a) (revealing confidential information relating to the representation of a client), RPC 1.7(a)(2) (concurrent conflict of interest), and RPC 1.16(d) (improper termination of representation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ESTELLE FLYNN LORD 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 14-105, concluding that ESTELLE FLYNN LORD of GARWOOD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.6(a) (revealing confidential information relating to the representation of a client), RPC 1.7(a)(2) (concurrent conflict of interest), and RPC 1.16(d) (improper termination of representation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ESTELLE FLYNN LORD 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)

106 A.3d 478, 220 N.J. 339, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lord-nj-2015.