In Re Perwin

287 A.2d 3, 60 N.J. 174, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 231
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 7, 1972·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

The respondent was convicted of criminal offenses in connection with a conspiracy to defraud an insurance carrier. The convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Division, State v. Yormark, 117 N. J. Super. 313 (1971), and we have denied certification. 60 N. J. 138 (1972).

The misconduct requires an order of disbarment, and it is so ordered.

At the oral argument respondent stated that he intended promptly to seek further review of the convictions in other tribunals. Should he prevail in those efforts, he may apply to us for reconsideration of this order.

For disbarment—Chief Justice Weintbaub and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Sohettino and Mountain—7.

Opposed—Hone.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re Perwin, 287 A.2d 3, 60 N.J. 174, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 231 (N.J. 1972).

287 A.2d 3 (In Re Perwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Perwin
283 A.D.2d 709 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Matter of Zauber
583 A.2d 1140 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1991)
Matter of Surgent
518 A.2d 215 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1986)
In Re Toplitt
306 A.2d 446 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1973)
In Re Zwillman
293 A.2d 657 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1972)