In re Seidenstock

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Seidenstock

709 A.2d 201, 153 N.J. 363, 1998 N.J. LEXIS 428

DecidedMay 6, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 709 A.2d 201 (In re Seidenstock) 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 Seidenstock, 709 A.2d 201, 153 N.J. 363, 1998 N.J. LEXIS 428 (N.J. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on March 3, 1998, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that PAUL H. SEIDENSTOCK of STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), RPC 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PAUL H. SEINDENSTOCK is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[364]*364ORDERED 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 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 on March 3, 1998, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that PAUL H. SEIDENSTOCK of STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), RPC 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PAUL H. SEINDENSTOCK is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[364]*364ORDERED 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

709 A.2d 201, 153 N.J. 363, 1998 N.J. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-seidenstock-nj-1998.