In re Magid

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Magid

772 A.2d 922, 167 N.J. 614, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 696

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 772 A.2d 922 (In re Magid) 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 Magid, 772 A.2d 922, 167 N.J. 614, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 696 (N.J. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 00-124 concluding that LAWRENCE MAGID of PHOENIX, ARIZONA, and formerly of WOODBURY,, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), and RPC 1.16(d) (failure to take reasonably practicable steps to protect client’s interests on termination of representation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that LAWRENCE MAGID 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 00-124 concluding that LAWRENCE MAGID of PHOENIX, ARIZONA, and formerly of WOODBURY,, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1969, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), and RPC 1.16(d) (failure to take reasonably practicable steps to protect client’s interests on termination of representation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that LAWRENCE MAGID 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)

772 A.2d 922, 167 N.J. 614, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-magid-nj-2001.