In re Stolz

160 A.3d 1279, 229 N.J. 223, 2017 WL 2378090, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 579
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJune 1, 2017
StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.3d 1279 (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, 160 A.3d 1279, 229 N.J. 223, 2017 WL 2378090, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 579 (N.J. 2017).

Opinion

ORDER

This matter have been duly presented pursuant to Rule 1:20— 10(b), following a granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 16-392 of J. ELLIOT STOLZ, A/K/A JARED E. STOLZ, of FLEMINGTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), RPC 8.4(d)(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and Rule 1:20-20 (rule imposing certain restrictions on suspended attorneys);

And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), RPC 8.4(d) and Rule 1:20-20, and that said conduct warrants a censure or lesser discipline;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further determined that the stipulated facts supported a violation of RPC 8.1(b) (failure to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a censure is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical [224]*224conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XIV-2016-0588E and XIV-2016-0589E;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with Rule 1:20—16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that J. ELLIOT STOLZ, A/K/A JARED E. STOLZ, of FLEMINGTON 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A.3d 1279, 229 N.J. 223, 2017 WL 2378090, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-stolz-nj-2017.