In re Lucid

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Lucid

667 A.2d 1042, 143 N.J. 2, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1384

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided December 1, 1995·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having on October 31,1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that ROWLAND V. LUCID, JR., of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4 (failure to communicate) and RPC 1.5(b) (failure to have written fee agreement), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ROWLAND V. LUCID, JR., 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having on October 31,1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that ROWLAND V. LUCID, JR., of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4 (failure to communicate) and RPC 1.5(b) (failure to have written fee agreement), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ROWLAND V. LUCID, JR., 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

In re Lucid, 667 A.2d 1042, 143 N.J. 2, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1384 (N.J. 1995).

Pincite

667 A.2d 1042 (In re Lucid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.