In re Rushfield

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Rushfield

667 A.2d 684, 142 N.J. 617, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1386

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 667 A.2d 684 (In re Rushfield) 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 Rushfield, 667 A.2d 684, 142 N.J. 617, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1386 (N.J. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having on August 23,1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that MARK C. RUSH-FIELD of ROSELAND, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, should be reprimanded on the basis of a guilty plea to a three-count federal information charging respondent with violating the ERISA-reporting provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 1023 and § 1024, misdemeanor offenses under 29 U.S.C. § 1131, and respondent having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and good cause appearing;

[618]*618It is ORDERED that MARK C. RUSHFIELD 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 on August 23,1995, filed with the Court its decision concluding that MARK C. RUSH-FIELD of ROSELAND, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980, should be reprimanded on the basis of a guilty plea to a three-count federal information charging respondent with violating the ERISA-reporting provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 1023 and § 1024, misdemeanor offenses under 29 U.S.C. § 1131, and respondent having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and good cause appearing;

[618]*618It is ORDERED that MARK C. RUSHFIELD 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)

667 A.2d 684, 142 N.J. 617, 1995 N.J. LEXIS 1386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rushfield-nj-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack