In re Verdiramo

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Verdiramo

162 A.3d 291, 229 N.J. 336, 2017 WL 2603059, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 635

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 15, 2017·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-181, recommending that the motion for reciprocal discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics pursuant to Rule 1:20-14 against VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO, formerly of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1965, be denied for lack of jurisdiction, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the motion for reciprocal discipline filed against VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO in District Docket No. XIV-2012-0341E, is hereby denied for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 1:20-14.

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 16-181, recommending that the motion for reciprocal discipline filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics pursuant to Rule 1:20-14 against VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO, formerly of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1965, be denied for lack of jurisdiction, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the motion for reciprocal discipline filed against VINCENT L. VERDIRAMO in District Docket No. XIV-2012-0341E, is hereby denied for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 1:20-14.

In re Verdiramo, 162 A.3d 291, 229 N.J. 336, 2017 WL 2603059, 2017 N.J. LEXIS 635 (N.J. 2017).

Pincite

162 A.3d 291 (In re Verdiramo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.