In Re Markham

998 A.2d 471, 202 N.J. 568
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJuly 20, 2010
DocketD-127 September Term 2009, 066397
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 998 A.2d 471 (In Re Markham) 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 Markham, 998 A.2d 471, 202 N.J. 568 (N.J. 2010).

Opinion

ORDER

This matter have been duly presented to the Court pursuant to Rule l:20-10(b), on the granting by the Disciplinary Review Board of a motion for discipline by consent (DRB 10-104) in respect of THERESA A. MARKHAM of VERNON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1999;

And the District XB Ethics Committee and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 1.8(a) (conflict of interest-business transaction with client), RPC 5.3 (failure to supervise nonlawyer staff), RPC 8.4(a) (attempt to violate RPC 1.7), RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and Rule 5:3-5(b) (during the period of representation, an attorney shall not take or hold a security interest, mortgage, or other *569 lien on the client’s property interests to assure payment of the fee);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated RPC 1.8(a), RPC 5.3, RPC 8.1(b), RPC 8.4(a), RPC 8.4(c), RPC 8.4(d) and Rule 5:3-5(b), and that said conduct warrants a censure;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that respondent’s conduct violated RPC 1.8(a), RPC 5.3, RPC 8.4(a), RPC 8.4(c), RPC 8.4(d) and Rule 5:3-5(b) and that a censure with conditions is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s ethics violations and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No.XB-2009-0028E;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further determined that respondent should be required to complete five hours of professional responsibility courses and that she should be referred to the Morris County Bar Association Committee on Professionalism for an assessment and, if appropriate, the appointment of a mentor to assist her in developing and maintaining courtesy and civility in her dealings with others;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with Rule l:20-16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that THERESA A. MARKHAM of VERNON is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that within ninety days after the filing date of this Order, respondent shall enroll in and complete five hours of professional responsibility courses approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED respondent shall contact the Morris County Bar Association Committee on Professionalism to arrange for an assessment, and if the Committee finds appropriate, for the development of a program to assist respondent in developing and maintaining courtesy and civility in her professional dealings with others, which may include the appointment of a mentor; and it is further

*570 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Markham
111 A.D.3d 108 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
998 A.2d 471, 202 N.J. 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-markham-nj-2010.