Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneylawyermotioncompliancerespondent
attorneylawyermotiondocketrespondent

Related Cases

Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, 769 So.2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S911
View Case »
Purdy v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., 157 Cal.App.3d 59, 203 Cal.Rptr. 524
View Case »
Legal Aid Soc. of Hawaii v. Legal Services Corp., 980 F.Supp. 1142 (Mem)
View Case »
In re Tenenbaum, 81 A.D.3d 738, 916 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 01033
View Case »
Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194, 57 USLW 2374
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Sills Cummis Zuckerman, Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross, 192 N.J. 222, 927 A.2d 1249 (Mem)

Facts

The law firm of Sills Cummis Zuckerman Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross was presented to the Court following a motion for discipline by consent. The Office of Attorney Ethics and the respondent signed a stipulation agreeing that the firm violated RPC 5.1(a) by not making reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. The parties acknowledged that this conduct warranted a reprimand.

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that the law firm violated RPC 5.1(a) (failure to make reasonable efforts to ensure that lawyers of the law firm undertake measures that give reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct);

Issue

Did the law firm violate RPC 5.1(a) and what is the appropriate discipline for such a violation?

Did the law firm violate RPC 5.1(a) and what is the appropriate discipline for such a violation?

Rule

RPC 5.1(a) requires law firms to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

RPC 5.1(a) (failure to make reasonable efforts to ensure that lawyers of the law firm undertake measures that give reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct);

Analysis

The court applied RPC 5.1(a) to the facts of the case, determining that the law firm failed to take necessary measures to ensure compliance with professional conduct rules. The stipulation of discipline by consent indicated that the firm acknowledged its failure and agreed that a reprimand was warranted.

The Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for the law firm's ethics violation and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XIV–00–408E;

Conclusion

The court ordered that the law firm of Sills Cummis Zuckerman Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross is hereby reprimanded. Additionally, the firm is required to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

It is ORDERED that the law firm of SILLS CUMMIS ZUCKERMAN RADIN TISCHMAN EPSTEIN & GROSS is hereby reprimanded;

Who won?

The Office of Attorney Ethics prevailed in this case as the court upheld the motion for discipline by consent and issued a reprimand against the law firm.

The Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for the law firm's ethics violation and having granted the motion for discipline by consent in District Docket No. XIV–00–408E;

You must be