In re Muckelroy

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Muckelroy

572 A.2d 589, 118 N.J. 451, 1990 N.J. LEXIS 163

DecidedJanuary 16, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 572 A.2d 589 (In re Muckelroy) 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 Muckelroy, 572 A.2d 589, 118 N.J. 451, 1990 N.J. LEXIS 163 (N.J. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OEDEE

This matter having been submitted to the Court on the report of the Disciplinary Eeview Board that WILLIAM L. MUCKEL-EOY, of TEENTON, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1975, be publicly reprimanded based on its determination that respondent’s conduct in 1988 and 1984, in attempting to collect a legal fee from an indigent whom he was assigned to represent, was unethical and in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5) and superseding RPC 8.4(c) and (d), and good cause appearing;

It is OEDEEED that the findings and recommendation of the Disciplinary Eeview Board are adopted and respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

OEDEEED that the Decision and Eecommendation of the Disciplinary Eeview Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file [452]*452of said WILLIAM L. MUCKELROY as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

ORDERED that WILLIAM L. MUCKELROY reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.

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

OEDEE

This matter having been submitted to the Court on the report of the Disciplinary Eeview Board that WILLIAM L. MUCKEL-EOY, of TEENTON, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1975, be publicly reprimanded based on its determination that respondent’s conduct in 1988 and 1984, in attempting to collect a legal fee from an indigent whom he was assigned to represent, was unethical and in violation of DR 1-102(A)(4) and (5) and superseding RPC 8.4(c) and (d), and good cause appearing;

It is OEDEEED that the findings and recommendation of the Disciplinary Eeview Board are adopted and respondent is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

OEDEEED that the Decision and Eecommendation of the Disciplinary Eeview Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file [452]*452of said WILLIAM L. MUCKELROY as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

ORDERED that WILLIAM L. MUCKELROY reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 A.2d 589, 118 N.J. 451, 1990 N.J. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-muckelroy-nj-1990.