Matter of Furino

4 A.3d 151, 203 N.J. 425, 2010 N.J. LEXIS 913
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided September 23, 2010·No. D-128 September Term 2009, 066398·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 10-112, concluding that RALPH V. FURINO of JAMESBURG, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), *426 RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the matter), RPC 1.8(e) (providing financial assistance to client in connection with contemplated litigation), and RPC 1.8(h)(1) (making agreement with client to limit attorney’s liability for malpractice when client not independently represented by counsel), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RALPH V. FURINO 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

Matter of Furino, 4 A.3d 151, 203 N.J. 425, 2010 N.J. LEXIS 913 (N.J. 2010).

4 A.3d 151 (Matter of Furino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. Kerry A. Nessel
769 S.E.2d 484 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2015)