In re Sharma

696 A.2d 12, 150 N.J. 205, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 204
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJuly 11, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 696 A.2d 12 (In re Sharma) 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 Sharma, 696 A.2d 12, 150 N.J. 205, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 204 (N.J. 1997).

Opinion

[206]*206ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on June 10, 1997, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that UDIT STEVEN SHARMA of PENNINGTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year for his violations of RPC 3.2 (failure to treat with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process), RPC 7.1 (false or misleading communications), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and that prior to reinstatement to the practice of law respondent should be required to complete ten hours of professional responsibility courses and to submit proof of his psychiatric fitness to practice law, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that UDIT STEVEN SHARMA is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, effective August 6,1997, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement respondent shall complete ten hours of courses in professional responsibility given by the Institute for Continuing Legal Education; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to practice, respondent shall demonstrate by competent psychiatric proof that he is fit to practice law; 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

[207]*207ORDERED that respondent be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension and that he 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

Related

Mruz v. Caring, Inc.
107 F. Supp. 2d 596 (D. New Jersey, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
696 A.2d 12, 150 N.J. 205, 1997 N.J. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sharma-nj-1997.