In re Muller

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Muller

741 A.2d 91, 162 N.J. 120, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1654

DecidedDecember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 741 A.2d 91 (In re Muller) 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 Muller, 741 A.2d 91, 162 N.J. 120, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1654 (N.J. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

CORRECTED ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on July 1, 1999, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that STEVEN T. MUL[121]*121LER of BERGENFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1971, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that STEYEN T. MULLER 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

CORRECTED ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on July 1, 1999, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that STEVEN T. MUL[121]*121LER of BERGENFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1971, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that STEYEN T. MULLER 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)

741 A.2d 91, 162 N.J. 120, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-muller-nj-1999.