From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Giusti

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 14, 1997
147 N.J. 265 (N.J. 1997)

Opinion

January 14, 1997.


ORDER

This matter having been presented to the Court pursuant to Rule 1:20-10(b) following a motion for discipline by consent of LEONARD A. GIUSTI of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1991;

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), by forging the signature of a client and a notary while using the notary's seal;

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 reviewed the record pursuant to Rule 1:20-10(b)(3) to determine the appropriate measure of discipline for respondent's misconduct;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent's ethics infractions and having granted the motion for discipline by consent;

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 LEONARD A. GIUSTI 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.


Summaries of

Matter of Giusti

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 14, 1997
147 N.J. 265 (N.J. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Giusti

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF LEONARD A. GIUSTI, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jan 14, 1997

Citations

147 N.J. 265 (N.J. 1997)
686 A.2d 1185

Citing Cases

In re Lundy

The improper jurat cases cited by respondent's counsel also miss the mark, as Daniel Keating and Martin…