In re Schram

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Schram

163 A.3d 874, 229 N.J. 519, 2017 WL 2884860, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 742

DecidedJuly 7, 2017

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.3d 874 (In re Schram) 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 Schram, 163 A.3d 874, 229 N.J. 519, 2017 WL 2884860, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 742 (N.J. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-198 concluding that MARC B. SCHRAM of HAZLET, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be censured for violating RPC 8.4(b)(commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARC B. SCHRAM is hereby censured; 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

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 16-198 concluding that MARC B. SCHRAM of HAZLET, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be censured for violating RPC 8.4(b)(commission of a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MARC B. SCHRAM is hereby censured; 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.3d 874, 229 N.J. 519, 2017 WL 2884860, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schram-nj-2017.