From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Stolz

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Sep 4, 2014
219 N.J. 123 (N.J. 2014)

Opinion

2014-09-4

In the Matter of Jared E. STOLZ, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 019621990).


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 13–331, concluding that JARED E. STOLZ of FLEMINGTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 3.2 (failing to treat with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process), RPC 3.3(a)(1) (knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal), RPC 3.3(a)(5) (failing to disclose to the tribunal a material fact knowing that the omission is reasonably certain to mislead the tribunal), RPC 4.1(a) (in representing a client, knowingly making a false statement of material fact or law to a third person), RPC 8.4(a) (violating or attempting to violate the RPCs), and RPC 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JARED E. STOLZ is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, and until the further Order of the Court, effective October 3, 2014; 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 Stolz

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Sep 4, 2014
219 N.J. 123 (N.J. 2014)
Case details for

In re Stolz

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Jared E. STOLZ, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: Sep 4, 2014

Citations

219 N.J. 123 (N.J. 2014)
219 N.J. 123

Citing Cases

In re Stolz

Specifically, on October 3, 2014, the Court suspended respondent for three months for his violation of…

In re Sergei Orel

Historically, the conduct violative of RPC 3.2 involves more egregious and outrageous communications,…