In the Matter of Kronegold

961 A.2d 697, 197 N.J. 22, 2008 N.J. LEXIS 1326
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 10, 2008
DocketD-146 September Term 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 961 A.2d 697 (In the Matter of Kronegold) 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 the Matter of Kronegold, 961 A.2d 697, 197 N.J. 22, 2008 N.J. LEXIS 1326 (N.J. 2008).

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 07-378, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule l:20-14(a)(4)(E), SHELDON HERBERT KRONEGOLD of ENGLEWOOD, who was admitted to the bar of this state in 1983, should be suspended from the practice of law for two prospective six-month suspensions, to run consecutively, based on discipline imposed in the State of New York for conduct that in New Jersey violates RPC 5.5(a)(2) (assisting a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law) and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice);

And respondent having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SHELDON HERBERT KRONEGOLD

is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective October 10, 2008, for the unethical conduct found in District Docket No. XIV-07-125E, and suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective April 11, 2009, for the unethical conduct found in District Docket No. XIV-06-273E; 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 *23 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

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

Related

In Re Sosnowski
961 A.2d 697 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
961 A.2d 697, 197 N.J. 22, 2008 N.J. LEXIS 1326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-kronegold-nj-2008.