In re Mandle

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Mandle

772 A.2d 919, 167 N.J. 609, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 694

DecidedJune 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 772 A.2d 919 (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, 772 A.2d 919, 167 N.J. 609, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 694 (N.J. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 00-061 concluding that GEORGE J. MANDLE, JR., of LINDEN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, and who thereafter was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court filed May 9, 2000, and who remains suspended at this time, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.15(b) (failure to deliver funds promptly to client) and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GEORGE J. MANDLE, 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 continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that he continue to comply with Rule 1:20-20; 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 00-061 concluding that GEORGE J. MANDLE, JR., of LINDEN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1970, and who thereafter was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court filed May 9, 2000, and who remains suspended at this time, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.15(b) (failure to deliver funds promptly to client) and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that GEORGE J. MANDLE, 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 continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that he continue to comply with Rule 1:20-20; 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 919, 167 N.J. 609, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mandle-nj-2001.