In re Saavedra

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Saavedra

624 A.2d 1369, 132 N.J. 271, 1993 N.J. LEXIS 120

DecidedJune 8, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 624 A.2d 1369 (In re Saavedra) 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 Saavedra, 624 A.2d 1369, 132 N.J. 271, 1993 N.J. LEXIS 120 (N.J. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that IGNACIO SAAVEDRA, JR., of UNION CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, be publicly reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross ne[272]*272gleet), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate) and RPC 8.1 (failure to cooperate with the ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and IGNACIO SAAVEDRA, JR., is hereby publicly 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 Ethics Financial 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 a report with the Court, recommending that IGNACIO SAAVEDRA, JR., of UNION CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, be publicly reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross ne[272]*272gleet), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate) and RPC 8.1 (failure to cooperate with the ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and IGNACIO SAAVEDRA, JR., is hereby publicly 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 Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 A.2d 1369, 132 N.J. 271, 1993 N.J. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-saavedra-nj-1993.