[DOWNLOAD] "In re Seelig" by Supreme Court of New Jersey # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: In re Seelig
- Author : Supreme Court of New Jersey
- Release Date : January 24, 2004
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 67 KB
Description
Argued June 3, 2003 On an Order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. Respondent Jack L. Seelig was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New Jersey in 1972. He has been a certified Criminal Trial Attorney for more than two decades and had not been the subject of disciplinary proceedings before this matter arose. On September 22, 2000, however, the District III-B Ethics Committee (Burlington County) filed a complaint alleging that respondent had violated Rule of Professional Conduct (1984) (RPC) 1.6(b)(2) (""A lawyer shall reveal such information to the proper authorities, as soon as, and to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary, to prevent the client from committing a criminal, illegal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to perpetrate a fraud upon a tribunal.""); RPC 3.3(a)(1) (""A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal.""); RPC 3.3(a)(5) (""A lawyer shall not knowingly fail to disclose to the tribunal a material fact with knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be misled by such failure.""); RPC 8.4(c) (""It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.""); and, RPC 8.4(d) (""It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice."").1 The violations asserted in the complaint arose out of certain acts and omissions attributed to respondent during his representation of Jeffrey Poje in an underlying matter involving both motor vehicle offenses and indictable charges. The facts of the Poje case and the conduct of respondent as Poje's attorney are provided insofar as they are necessary for a disposition of the ethics complaint.