From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Nash

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mar 27, 2018
232 N.J. 362 (N.J. 2018)

Opinion

D–63 September Term 2017 080526

03-27-2018

In the MATTER OF Rachel H. NASH, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 040762000)


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 17–235, concluding that as a matter of reciprocal discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20–14(a)(4)(E) RACHEL H. NASH of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 2000, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period two years based on discipline imposed in New York for unethical conduct that in New Jersey constitutes violations of RPC 3.1 (asserting an issue with no basis in law or fact; RPC 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation; RPC 3.4(c) (knowingly disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal; RPC 4.4(a) (during the representation of a client, using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person; RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that RACHEL H. NASH is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court, effective April 23, 2018; 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(d) ; 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 Nash

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Mar 27, 2018
232 N.J. 362 (N.J. 2018)
Case details for

In re Nash

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF Rachel H. NASH, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: Mar 27, 2018

Citations

232 N.J. 362 (N.J. 2018)
180 A.3d 319

Citing Cases

In re Smith

In support of its position, the OAE cited In the Matter of Rachel H. Nash, DRB 17-235 (December 27, 2017),…

In re Hunziker

; the attorney also violated RPC 3.1 (frivolous claims) and RPC 3.2 (failure to expedite litigation), by…