In re Lowden

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Lowden

146 A.3d 644, 226 N.J. 586, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 898

DecidedSeptember 21, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A.3d 644 (In re Lowden) 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 Lowden, 146 A.3d 644, 226 N.J. 586, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 898 (N.J. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review. Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 15-269, concluding that SUSAN A. LOWDEN of HADDONFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1991, should be censured for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b)(failure to communicate with the client), and RPC 8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SUSAN A. LOWDEN is hereby censured; 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 15-269, concluding that SUSAN A. LOWDEN of HADDONFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1991, should be censured for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b)(failure to communicate with the client), and RPC 8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SUSAN A. LOWDEN is hereby censured; 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)

146 A.3d 644, 226 N.J. 586, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lowden-nj-2016.