In re Rushfield

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Rushfield

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

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided December 4, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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] It 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] It 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.

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

Pincite

667 A.2d 684 (In re Rushfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related