In re Santiago

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Santiago

816 A.2d 152, 175 N.J. 499, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 186

DecidedFebruary 28, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 816 A.2d 152 (In re Santiago) 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 Santiago, 816 A.2d 152, 175 N.J. 499, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 186 (N.J. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-168, concluding that EMILIO SANTIAGO of CLIFTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 3.3(a)(l)(knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), RPC 3.3(a)(5)(l)(failing to disclose to a tribunal a material fact with knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be misled by such failure), RPC 8.4(b)(com-mission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), RPC 8.4(c)(con-duct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d)(conduet prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further having concluded that on reinstatement to practice, respondent should practice under supervision by an attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that EMILIO SANTIAGO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective March 28, 2003; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years and until the further order of the Court; and it is

[500]*500ORDERED 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 be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20; 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 02-168, concluding that EMILIO SANTIAGO of CLIFTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 3.3(a)(l)(knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), RPC 3.3(a)(5)(l)(failing to disclose to a tribunal a material fact with knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be misled by such failure), RPC 8.4(b)(com-mission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), RPC 8.4(c)(con-duct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d)(conduet prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further having concluded that on reinstatement to practice, respondent should practice under supervision by an attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that EMILIO SANTIAGO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective March 28, 2003; and it is further

ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics, for a period of two years and until the further order of the Court; and it is

[500]*500ORDERED 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 be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20; 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)

816 A.2d 152, 175 N.J. 499, 2003 N.J. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-santiago-nj-2003.