In re Mirsky

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Mirsky

823 A.2d 804, 176 N.J. 421, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 579

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 5, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 823 A.2d 804 (In re Mirsky) 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 Mirsky, 823 A.2d 804, 176 N.J. 421, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 579 (N.J. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-381, concluding pursuant to Rule 1:20-4 that as a matter of reciprocal discipline, STEVEN E. MIRSKY of ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, should be reprimanded based on discipline imposed by the state of Maryland for conduct constituting violations of RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with ehent), RPC 1.15(a) (negligent misappropriation of client’s funds) and RPC 1.16(d) (failure to promptly return portion of retainer to client), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that STEVEN E. MIRSKY is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[422]*422ORDERED 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 02-381, concluding pursuant to Rule 1:20-4 that as a matter of reciprocal discipline, STEVEN E. MIRSKY of ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, should be reprimanded based on discipline imposed by the state of Maryland for conduct constituting violations of RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with ehent), RPC 1.15(a) (negligent misappropriation of client’s funds) and RPC 1.16(d) (failure to promptly return portion of retainer to client), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that STEVEN E. MIRSKY is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[422]*422ORDERED 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)

823 A.2d 804, 176 N.J. 421, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mirsky-nj-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack