From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Clausen

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Apr 23, 2013
213 N.J. 461 (N.J. 2013)

Opinion

2013-04-23

In the Matter of Paul Franklin CLAUSEN, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 015951982).


ORDER

This matter have been duly presented to the Court pursuant to Rule 1:20–10(b)(1), on the granting of a motion for discipline by consent (DRB 13–010) of PAUL FRANKLIN CLAUSEN of CLINTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982;

And the District XIII Ethics Committee and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 5.5(a)(1) (unauthorized practice of law);

And the parties having agreed that respondent's conduct violated RPC 5.5(a)(1), and that said conduct warrants a reprimand;

And 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. XIII–2011–0009E;

And 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 1:20–16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PAUL FRANKLIN CLAUSEN of CLINTON 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.


Summaries of

In re Clausen

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Apr 23, 2013
213 N.J. 461 (N.J. 2013)
Case details for

In re Clausen

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Paul Franklin CLAUSEN, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: Apr 23, 2013

Citations

213 N.J. 461 (N.J. 2013)
64 A.3d 535

Citing Cases

In re Vassallo

The DEC found that respondent's claimed lack of knowledge was "not persuasive." In order to assess the…

In re Brent

" Nevertheless, the parties agreed that, "concerning the [CPF], it appears that Respondent was fully aware of…