In re Nagel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Nagel

761 A.2d 534, 165 N.J. 565, 2000 N.J. LEXIS 1713

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 22, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision concluding that BRUCE H. NAGEL of LIVINGSTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 3.4(c)(knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of tribunal) and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BRUCE H. NAGEL 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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision concluding that BRUCE H. NAGEL of LIVINGSTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 3.4(c)(knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of tribunal) and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BRUCE H. NAGEL 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.

In re Nagel, 761 A.2d 534, 165 N.J. 565, 2000 N.J. LEXIS 1713 (N.J. 2000).

Pincite

761 A.2d 534 (In re Nagel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related