In re Ojeda

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Ojeda

729 A.2d 431, 158 N.J. 261, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 812

DecidedMay 27, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 729 A.2d 431 (In re Ojeda) 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 Ojeda, 729 A.2d 431, 158 N.J. 261, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 812 (N.J. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on December 17, 1998, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that ANGEL OJEDA, formerly of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, and who was placed by the Court on disability inactive status on February 6, 1997, and who remains in that status at this time, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence) and RPC 1.4 (failure to communicate), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANGEL OJEDA 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 on December 17, 1998, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that ANGEL OJEDA, formerly of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, and who was placed by the Court on disability inactive status on February 6, 1997, and who remains in that status at this time, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence) and RPC 1.4 (failure to communicate), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that ANGEL OJEDA 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)

729 A.2d 431, 158 N.J. 261, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ojeda-nj-1999.