In re Stolz

97 A.3d 260, 219 N.J. 123, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 880
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 4, 2014
StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.3d 260 (In re Stolz) 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 Stolz, 97 A.3d 260, 219 N.J. 123, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 880 (N.J. 2014).

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 13-331, concluding that JARED E. STOLZ of FLEMINGTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 3.2 (failing to treat with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process), RPC 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), RPC 3.3(a)(5) (failing to disclose to the tribunal a material fact knowing that the omission is reasonably certain to mislead the tribunal), RPC 4.1(a) (in representing a client, knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person), RPC 8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate the RPCs), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JARED E. STOLZ is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, and until the further Order of the Court, effective October 3, 2014; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule l:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further

[124]*124ORDERED 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
97 A.3d 260, 219 N.J. 123, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stolz-nj-2014.