In re Mandle

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Mandle

683 A.2d 552, 146 N.J. 520, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1108

DecidedOctober 18, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 683 A.2d 552 (In re Mandle) 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 Mandle, 683 A.2d 552, 146 N.J. 520, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1108 (N.J. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[521]*521ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on June 7, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that GEORGE J. MAN-DLE, JR., of LINDEN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, should be reprimanded for misconduct including gross neglect in four matters, combining to form a pattern of neglect, failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in all four matters, and failure to cooperate with the ethics authorities, all in violation of RPC 1.1, RPC 1.3 and RPC 8.1(b);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further concluding that respondent should practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney for a period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GEORGE J. MANDLE, JR., is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years and until further Order of the Court; 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

[522]*522ORDERED 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

[521]*521ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on June 7, 1996, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that GEORGE J. MAN-DLE, JR., of LINDEN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, should be reprimanded for misconduct including gross neglect in four matters, combining to form a pattern of neglect, failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client in all four matters, and failure to cooperate with the ethics authorities, all in violation of RPC 1.1, RPC 1.3 and RPC 8.1(b);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further concluding that respondent should practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney for a period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GEORGE J. MANDLE, JR., is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years and until further Order of the Court; 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

[522]*522ORDERED 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)

683 A.2d 552, 146 N.J. 520, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 1108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mandle-nj-1996.