In re Macias

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Macias

592 A.2d 215, 124 N.J. 602, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1509

DecidedJuly 11, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 592 A.2d 215 (In re Macias) 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 Macias, 592 A.2d 215, 124 N.J. 602, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1509 (N.J. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that SIXTO L. MACIAS of UNION CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, be publicly reprimanded for violating DR 7-101 and RPC 1.3, by failing to act with diligence in four matters, and for exhibiting a pattern of neglect in handling those matters, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(2) and RPC 1.1(b), and further recommending that respondent practice under the supervision of a proctor for a period of one year, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review are adopted and SIXTO L. MACIAS is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

[603]*603ORDERED that respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a proctor to be selected by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court; 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 the this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial 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 a report with the Court, recommending that SIXTO L. MACIAS of UNION CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, be publicly reprimanded for violating DR 7-101 and RPC 1.3, by failing to act with diligence in four matters, and for exhibiting a pattern of neglect in handling those matters, in violation of DR 6-101(A)(2) and RPC 1.1(b), and further recommending that respondent practice under the supervision of a proctor for a period of one year, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review are adopted and SIXTO L. MACIAS is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

[603]*603ORDERED that respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a proctor to be selected by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court; 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 the this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 A.2d 215, 124 N.J. 602, 1991 N.J. LEXIS 1509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-macias-nj-1991.