In the Matter of Breslin

4 Citing cases

  1. In re Paragano

    Docket No. DRB 15-366 (N.J. Aug. 4, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Instead, respondent blamed the OAE for not giving him any indication that it would proceed to seek the imposition of discipline or his temporary suspension. Relying on In re Breslin, 171 N.J. 235 (2002), respondent also argued that his 2004 censure was not properly before us because he was never convicted of domestic violence in that incident. Rather, respondent maintained, the Court in Breslin "refused to treat" the findings of the ACJC as conclusive in the subsequent attorney disciplinary proceeding because the Canons governing judicial behavior are more generalized than the RPCs and do not require "precise and specific findings of fact."

  2. In re Cozzarelli

    225 N.J. 16 (N.J. 2016)   Cited 9 times
    Discussing case law and noting "the importance of establishing ... an excusing causal connection"

    In this State, two rules in attorney misconduct matters are applied, virtually without exception. First, disbarment is permanent. R. 1:20–15A(a)(1); see also In re Breslin, 171 N.J. 235, 237, 793 A. 2d 645 (2002) (noting that “in New Jersey disbarment invariably is permanent”). Second, an attorney who knowingly misappropriates funds from a client is subject to disbarment, In re Wilson, 81 N.J. 451, 453, 409 A. 2d 1153 (1979), without any practical prospect of consideration of mitigating factors, id. at 457–60, 409 A. 2d 1153, or restoration upon a showing of reformation, id. at 460 n. 5, 409 A. 2d 1153 (noting that “research reveals only three orders of reinstatement following disbarment over the past hundred years”); see also Greenberg, supra, 155 N.J. at 151, 714 A. 2d 243 (“We accept as an inevitable consequence of the application of th[e Wilson ] rule that rarely will an attorney evade disbarment in such cases.”).

  3. In re Breslin

    Docket No. DRB 13-225 (N.J. Mar. 25, 2014)

    On March 28, 2002, the Supreme Court censured him for having violated then RPC 1.2(e), redesignated as RPC 1.4(d) (when a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by the RPCs or other law, the lawyer shall advise the client of the relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct). In re Breslin, Jr., 171 N.J. 235 (2002). There, respondent's former client gave him a manila envelope to pass on to the Director of Public Safety for Lyndhurst for the benefit of the client's son.

  4. Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services

    204 N.J. 320 (N.J. 2010)   Cited 549 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that NJLAD complaint must be filed within two years of the date on which the cause of action accrued

    Sopko v. Slackman (in Re Estate of Roccamonte), 174 N.J. 381, 808 A.2d 838 (2002) (6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned). In re Breslin, 171 N.J. 235, 793 A.2d 645 (2002) (6 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned). In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 777 A.2d 891 (2001) (5 Justices + 1 judge temporarily assigned).