In re Shin

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Shin

134 A.3d 444, 224 N.J. 455, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 481

DecidedMay 5, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A.3d 444 (In re Shin) 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 Shin, 134 A.3d 444, 224 N.J. 455, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 481 (N.J. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 15-138, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-14, that EUNGNAM PETER SHIN of FLUSHING, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, should be reprimanded for conduct that in New Jersey violates RPC 3.3(a)(1) (false statement to a tribunal), RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that EUNGNAM PETER SHIN is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[456]*456ORDERED 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 15-138, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20-14, that EUNGNAM PETER SHIN of FLUSHING, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1998, should be reprimanded for conduct that in New Jersey violates RPC 3.3(a)(1) (false statement to a tribunal), RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that EUNGNAM PETER SHIN is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[456]*456ORDERED 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)

134 A.3d 444, 224 N.J. 455, 2016 N.J. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shin-nj-2016.