In re Nadel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Nadel

150 A.3d 938, 227 N.J. 231, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 1285

DecidedDecember 7, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.3d 938 (In re Nadel) 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 Nadel, 150 A.3d 938, 227 N.J. 231, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 1285 (N.J. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 15-372, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule l:20-14(a)(4)(E), RAYMOND S. NA-DEL of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be censured based discipline imposed in the state of Delaware that in New Jersey constitutes a violation of RPC 5.5(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RAYMOND S. NADEL is hereby censured; 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 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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 15-372, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule l:20-14(a)(4)(E), RAYMOND S. NA-DEL of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be censured based discipline imposed in the state of Delaware that in New Jersey constitutes a violation of RPC 5.5(a)(1) (a lawyer shall not practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RAYMOND S. NADEL is hereby censured; 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.3d 938, 227 N.J. 231, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 1285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-nadel-nj-2016.