From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Lowenstein

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 24, 2009
978 A.2d 919 (N.J. 2009)

Opinion

September 24, 2009.


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 08-390, concluding that JOSEPH J. LOWENSTEIN of PATERSON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence) and RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with clients);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should be required to submit proof of his fitness to practice law, and that on reinstatement to practice, he should be supervised in the practice of law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOSEPH J. LOWENSTEIN is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, and until the further Order of the Court, effective October 23, 2009; and it is further

ORDERED that prior to reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent shall submit proof of his fitness to practice as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; and it is further

ORDERED that following his reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1:20-20(c), respondent's failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent's petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; 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 Lowenstein

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 24, 2009
978 A.2d 919 (N.J. 2009)
Case details for

In re Lowenstein

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH J. LOWENSTEIN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Sep 24, 2009

Citations

978 A.2d 919 (N.J. 2009)
978 A.2d 919

Citing Cases

In re Thompson

An attorney who lacked diligence and failed to communicate with his clients in four matters received a…

In re Lowenstein

The Court ordered that, prior to reinstatement, respondent provide proof of fitness to practice law, as…