In re Patel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Patel

868 A.2d 1008, 182 N.J. 587, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 205

DecidedMarch 9, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 868 A.2d 1008 (In re Patel) 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 Patel, 868 A.2d 1008, 182 N.J. 587, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 205 (N.J. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-261, concluding that C. AARON PATEL, [588]*588a/k/a CHIRAYU A. PATEL, of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1996, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.15(a)(negligent misappropriation of trust funds) and RPC 1.15(d) (failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements of R. 1:21-6), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that C. AARON PATEL, a/k/a CHIRAYU A. PATEL 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 in DRB 04-261, concluding that C. AARON PATEL, [588]*588a/k/a CHIRAYU A. PATEL, of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1996, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.15(a)(negligent misappropriation of trust funds) and RPC 1.15(d) (failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements of R. 1:21-6), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that C. AARON PATEL, a/k/a CHIRAYU A. PATEL 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)

868 A.2d 1008, 182 N.J. 587, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-patel-nj-2005.