Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

218 N.J. 163

In re Morin

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided July 11, 2014

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 2014-07-11

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 2019

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2014-07-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

¶2This matter have been duly presented pursuant to Rule 1:20-10(b), following the granting of a motion for discipline by consent in DRB 14-111 of PHILIP J. MORIN, III, of PHILLIPSBURG, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1994;

¶3And the District IIA Ethics Committee and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with client), RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation);

¶4And the parties having agreed that respondent’s conduct violated RPC 1.3, RPC 1.4(b) and RPC 8.4(c), and that said conduct warrants a reprimand or lesser discipline;

¶5And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent’s unethical conduct and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. IIA-2012-0011E;

¶6And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with Rule l:20-16(e);

¶7*164And good cause appearing;

¶8It is ORDERED that PHILIP J. MORIN, III, of PHILLIPS-BURG is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

¶9ORDERED 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

¶10ORDERED 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.

/218/nj/163 · .json · Public domain