In re Witherspoon

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Witherspoon

823 A.2d 803, 176 N.J. 420

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 4, 2003·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

CORRECTED ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-369, concluding that DAVID J. WITHER-SPOON of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State [421] in 1994, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DAVID J. WITHERSPOON 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CORRECTED ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-369, concluding that DAVID J. WITHER-SPOON of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State [421] in 1994, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DAVID J. WITHERSPOON 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

In re Witherspoon, 823 A.2d 803, 176 N.J. 420 (N.J. 2003).

Pincite

823 A.2d 803 (In re Witherspoon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related