In re Lucid

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Lucid

807 A.2d 809, 174 N.J. 367, 2002 N.J. LEXIS 1307

DecidedOctober 16, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 807 A.2d 809 (In re Lucid) 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 Lucid, 807 A.2d 809, 174 N.J. 367, 2002 N.J. LEXIS 1307 (N.J. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 01-398, concluding that ROWLAND Y. LUCID, JR., of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law) by practicing law while ineligible to do so by reason of failure to pay his annual assessment to the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, 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 filed with the Court its decision in DRB 01-398, concluding that ROWLAND Y. LUCID, JR., of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law) by practicing law while ineligible to do so by reason of failure to pay his annual assessment to the New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

807 A.2d 809, 174 N.J. 367, 2002 N.J. LEXIS 1307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lucid-nj-2002.