In re Oxfeld

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Oxfeld

979 A.2d 766, 200 N.J. 268

DecidedOctober 8, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 979 A.2d 766 (In re Oxfeld) 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 Oxfeld, 979 A.2d 766, 200 N.J. 268 (N.J. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 09-152, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20-4(f)(default by respondent), that NANCY I. OXFELD of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, should be censured for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3(lack of diligence) and RPC 1.4(b)(failure to communicate with client), and good cause appearing;

[269]*269It is ORDERED that NANCY I. OXFELD is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter bo 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 09-152, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20-4(f)(default by respondent), that NANCY I. OXFELD of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1977, should be censured for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3(lack of diligence) and RPC 1.4(b)(failure to communicate with client), and good cause appearing;

[269]*269It is ORDERED that NANCY I. OXFELD is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter bo 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)

979 A.2d 766, 200 N.J. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-oxfeld-nj-2009.