In re Hall

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Lucid

    DRB 20-216 (N.J. Jul. 9, 2021)

    ey cited his irreproachable conduct since his ethics infractions eight years before; the Court denied the request and ordered the attorney's disbarment); In re Bell, 126 N.J. 261 (1991) (three Court justices voiced their opinion that the inflexible application of the Wilson rule runs the risk of creating an "almost reflexive approach to [knowing misappropriation] cases, obscuring and ignoring the individual circumstances to an intolerable degree [citation omitted]." Id. at 267; the dissenting members would temper the Court's dispositions in knowing misappropriation cases by a recognition that, under special circumstances, discipline short of disbarment might sometimes be suitable); In re Houston, 130 N.J. 382 (1992) (three Court members believed that "under special circumstances discipline short of disbarment may occasionally be appropriate in knowing misappropriation cases"); and In re Hall, 181 N.J. 339 (2004) (we determined to impose an indeterminate suspension on the attorney, who, instead of asking a client for the payment of an already earned $3,500 legal fee, asked the client for $3,500 to be used as a down payment on real estate that the client wished to buy and then knowingly misappropriated the funds; the client confirmed that the attorney was owed $3,500 in fees and asked disciplinary authorities to treat the attorney with leniency; the attorney also borrowed money from three clients without observing the safeguards of RPC 1.8 and made misrepresentations to one client and to the OAE; in voting against disbarment, we considered that, although the attorney had obtained the funds by false pretenses, he did not understand the significance and the gravity of his actions, future clients' funds would not be at risk, his misconduct was the product of poor judgment prompted by panic, and there wa

  2. In re Wade

    DRB 20-274 (N.J. Jun. 28, 2021)

    In re Bell, 126 N.J. 261 (1991) (three Court justices voiced their opinion that the inflexible application of the Wilson rule runs the risk of creating an "almost reflexive approach to [knowing misappropriation] cases, obscuring and ignoring the individual circumstances to an intolerable degree [citation omitted]." Id. at 267; the dissenting members would temper the Court's dispositions in knowing misappropriation cases by a recognition that, under special circumstances, discipline short of disbarment might sometimes be suitable); In re Houston, 130 N.J. 382 (1992) (three Court members believed that "under special circumstances discipline short of disbarment may occasionally be appropriate in knowing misappropriation cases"); and In re Hall, 181 N.J. 339 (2004) (we voted for the imposition of an indeterminate suspension on the attorney, who, instead of asking a client for the payment of an already earned $3,500 legal fee, asked the client for $3,500 to be used as a down payment on real estate that the client wished to buy and then knowingly misappropriated the funds; the client confirmed that the attorney was owed $3,500 in fees and asked disciplinary authorities to treat the attorney with leniency; the attorney also borrowed money from three clients without observing the safeguards of RPC 1.8 and made misrepresentations to one client and to the OAE; in voting against disbarment, we considered that, although the attorney had obtained the funds by false pretenses, he did not understand the significance and the gravity of his actions, future clients' funds would not be at risk, his misconduct was the product of poor judgment prompte