In the Matter of Moses

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In the Matter of Moses

29 A.3d 737, 208 N.J. 361, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 1070

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 3, 2011·No. D-3 September Term 2011, 069111·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 11-086, concluding that KEITH O. MOSES of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence); RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client); RPC 1.4(c) (failure to explain matter to the extent necessary for client to make informed decisions); and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that KEITH O. MOSES 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 11-086, concluding that KEITH O. MOSES of JERSEY CITY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence); RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client); RPC 1.4(c) (failure to explain matter to the extent necessary for client to make informed decisions); and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that KEITH O. MOSES 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.

In the Matter of Moses, 29 A.3d 737, 208 N.J. 361, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 1070 (N.J. 2011).

Pincite

29 A.3d 737 (In the Matter of Moses) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related