In Re Mitchell

912 A.2d 1259, 189 N.J. 99, 2007 N.J. LEXIS 3
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJanuary 5, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 912 A.2d 1259 (In Re Mitchell) 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 Mitchell, 912 A.2d 1259, 189 N.J. 99, 2007 N.J. LEXIS 3 (N.J. 2007).

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-198, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20 — 4(f) (default by respondent), that EDWARD F. MITCHELL of TOMS RIVER, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, and who has been temporarily suspended from the practice of law since September 21, 2005, should be disbarred for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.1(b) (pattern of neglect), RPC 1.8 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of a matter or to promptly comply with requests for information), RPC 1.16(d) (on termination of representation, failure to protect a client’s interests), RPC 8.4(b) (criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And EDWARD F. MITCHELL having failed to appear on the Order to Show Cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that EDWARD F. MITCHELL be disbarred, effective immediately, and that his name be stricken from the roll of attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that be EDWARD F. MITCHELL hereby is permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 governing disbarred attorneys; and it is further

*100 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 Mitchell
40 A.D.3d 1255 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
912 A.2d 1259, 189 N.J. 99, 2007 N.J. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mitchell-nj-2007.