In re Mandel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Mandel

741 A.2d 81, 162 N.J. 100, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1671

DecidedDecember 10, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 741 A.2d 81 (In re Mandel) 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 Mandel, 741 A.2d 81, 162 N.J. 100, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1671 (N.J. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on June 17, 1999, having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 98-473 concluding that SAMUEL MANDEL of MOORESTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), RPC 1.16(d) (failure to turn over file to new attorney), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SAMUEL MANDEL 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

[101]*101ORDERED 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 on June 17, 1999, having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 98-473 concluding that SAMUEL MANDEL of MOORESTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1968, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), RPC 1.16(d) (failure to turn over file to new attorney), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SAMUEL MANDEL 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

[101]*101ORDERED 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)

741 A.2d 81, 162 N.J. 100, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mandel-nj-1999.