In re Seaman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Seaman

286 A.2d 509, 60 N.J. 136, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 226

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided January 24, 1972·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Pee Cuelam.

Bespondent stands convicted of misconduct in office, extortion and conspiracy to commit each of these crimes. He has been sentenced to State Prison for a term of 1-3 years and fined $5,000. The precise nature of the criminal activity is set forth in full detail in 114 N. J. Super. 19 (App. Div. 1971).

The circumstances of the case permit of no appropriate discipline short of disbarment.

The order of the Court is that the name of the respondent be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

For disbarment: Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

Opposed: None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cuelam.

Bespondent stands convicted of misconduct in office, extortion and conspiracy to commit each of these crimes. He has been sentenced to State Prison for a term of 1-3 years and fined $5,000. The precise nature of the criminal activity is set forth in full detail in 114 N. J. Super. 19 (App. Div. 1971).

The circumstances of the case permit of no appropriate discipline short of disbarment.

The order of the Court is that the name of the respondent be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

For disbarment: Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

Opposed: None.

In re Seaman, 286 A.2d 509, 60 N.J. 136, 1972 N.J. LEXIS 226 (N.J. 1972).

Pincite

286 A.2d 509 (In re Seaman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related