In re Smith

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Smith

175 A.3d 966, 231 N.J. 397

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJanuary 11, 2018

DocketD–188 September Term 2016; 079711

StatusPublished

This text of 175 A.3d 966 (In re Smith) 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 Smith, 175 A.3d 966, 231 N.J. 397 (N.J. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB

*96717-007, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20-4(f) (default by respondent) that KEITH T. SMITH of EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP , who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, should be censured for violating RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6 (recordkeeping); and RPC 8.1(b) and Rule 1:20-3(g)(3); and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that KEITH T. SMITH 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

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB

*96717-007, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20-4(f) (default by respondent) that KEITH T. SMITH of EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP , who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, should be censured for violating RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6 (recordkeeping); and RPC 8.1(b) and Rule 1:20-3(g)(3); and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that KEITH T. SMITH 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)

175 A.3d 966, 231 N.J. 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smith-nj-2018.