In re Morton

172 A.3d 545, 231 N.J. 130
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 1, 2017·No. 080073·Published

Opinion

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented pursuant to Rule 1:20-10(b)(1), following a granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 17-229 of BENJAMIN MORTON of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 1.15(d)(failure to comply with the record-keeping requirements of Rule 1:21-6);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated RPC 1.15(d)(failure to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Rule 1:21-6), and that said conduct warrants a censure or such lesser discipline as the Board may deem appropriate;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in VA-2016-0004E and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BENJAMIN MORTON is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[131] 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

In re Morton, 172 A.3d 545, 231 N.J. 130 (N.J. 2017).

172 A.3d 545 (In re Morton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.