In re Schwartz

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Schwartz

78 A.3d 527, 216 N.J. 167, 2013 WL 6062262, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 6

DecidedJanuary 10, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 78 A.3d 527 (In re Schwartz) 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 Schwartz, 78 A.3d 527, 216 N.J. 167, 2013 WL 6062262, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 6 (N.J. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-142, concluding that JOEL LEE SCHWARTZ of NORTHFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, should be censured for violating RPC 1.5(c) (failure to provide client with a written statement of the outcome of the matter and showing the remittance to the client and the method of its determination), RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), RPC 1.8(a) (improperly entering into a business transaction with a client), and ACPE Opinion 657, 130 N.J.L.J. 656 (February 24, 1992) (requiring lawyers to keep their law practices separate from their business enterprises), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOEL LEE SCHWARTZ 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 12-142, concluding that JOEL LEE SCHWARTZ of NORTHFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, should be censured for violating RPC 1.5(c) (failure to provide client with a written statement of the outcome of the matter and showing the remittance to the client and the method of its determination), RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), RPC 1.8(a) (improperly entering into a business transaction with a client), and ACPE Opinion 657, 130 N.J.L.J. 656 (February 24, 1992) (requiring lawyers to keep their law practices separate from their business enterprises), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOEL LEE SCHWARTZ 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)

78 A.3d 527, 216 N.J. 167, 2013 WL 6062262, 2013 N.J. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-schwartz-nj-2013.