In re Mikita

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Mikita

832 A.2d 317, 177 N.J. 563, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 1141

DecidedOctober 1, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 832 A.2d 317 (In re Mikita) 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 Mikita, 832 A.2d 317, 177 N.J. 563, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 1141 (N.J. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 03-110, concluding that WILLIAM P. MIKITA, JR., of WOODBRIDGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1994, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.5(c) (failure to provide client with written statement of outcome on conclusion of contingent fee matter), RPC 5.3(b) ( failure to supervise non-lawyer assistants), RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WILLIAM P. MIKITA, 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 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 03-110, concluding that WILLIAM P. MIKITA, JR., of WOODBRIDGE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1994, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.5(c) (failure to provide client with written statement of outcome on conclusion of contingent fee matter), RPC 5.3(b) ( failure to supervise non-lawyer assistants), RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that WILLIAM P. MIKITA, 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 reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 A.2d 317, 177 N.J. 563, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 1141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mikita-nj-2003.