In re Weichsel

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Weichsel

55 A.3d 64, 212 N.J. 436, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1145

DecidedNovember 5, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.3d 64 (In re Weichsel) 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 Weichsel, 55 A.3d 64, 212 N.J. 436, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1145 (N.J. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-112, concluding that JOHN L. WEICHSEL of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, should be reprimanded for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with the client), and RPC 8.4(a)(violation of the RPCs), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN L. WEICHSEL is hereby reprimanded; 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

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 12-112, concluding that JOHN L. WEICHSEL of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1972, should be reprimanded for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with the client), and RPC 8.4(a)(violation of the RPCs), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN L. WEICHSEL is hereby reprimanded; 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)

55 A.3d 64, 212 N.J. 436, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 1145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-weichsel-nj-2012.