From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Rak

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 10, 2010
203 N.J. 381 (N.J. 2010)

Opinion

September 10, 2010.


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 10-032, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to Rule 1:20-4(f) (default by respondent), that SAMUEL RAK of LEONIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to communicate with the client), and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that SAMUEL RAK 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 Rak

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 10, 2010
203 N.J. 381 (N.J. 2010)
Case details for

In re Rak

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF SAMUEL RAK, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 019681985)

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Sep 10, 2010

Citations

203 N.J. 381 (N.J. 2010)
4 A.3d 125

Citing Cases

In re Vena

See, e.g., In re Cataline, 219 N.J. 429 (2014) (attorney guilty of gross neglect, lack of diligence, failure…

In re Vaccaro

Generally, in default matters, a reprimand is imposed for lack of diligence, failure to communicate with the…