From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Russell

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 18, 2010
201 N.J. 410 (N.J. 2010)

Opinion

March 18, 2010.


ORDER

This matter have been duly presented to the Court pursuant to Rule 1:20-10(b), following a motion for discipline by consent of FELICIA B. RUSSELL of FORKED RIVER, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1980;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And the parties having agreed that respondent's conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), and that said conduct warrants a reprimand;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent's ethics violation and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XIV-2008-374E;

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 FELICIA B. RUSSELL of FORKED RIVER 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 Over-sight 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 Russell

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 18, 2010
201 N.J. 410 (N.J. 2010)
Case details for

In re Russell

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF FELICIA B. RUSSELL, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 18, 2010

Citations

201 N.J. 410 (N.J. 2010)
991 A.2d 212

Citing Cases

In re Stiles

See, e.g., In re Bedell, 204 N.J. 596 (2011) (attorney signed clients' names on individual releases and then…

In re Russell

Respondent believed that the wife had signed the document, because the wife had been in the office that day.…