Citation Numbers： 914 A.2d 834, 189 N.J. 203, 2007 N.J. LEXIS 33
Filed Date： 1/25/2007
Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 10/19/2024
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-184, concluding that MARIA INES GONZALEZ of JAMAICA, NEW YORK, who was admitted to the bar of this State *835 in 1987, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating RPC 1.5 and Rule 1:21-6(c)(1)(a) (failure to safeguard funds by impermissibly allowing the use of a signature stamp on trust account checks), RPC 5.3(a) (failure to properly supervise non-lawyer assistants), RPC 5.4(a) (sharing legal fees with a non-lawyer), former RPC 5.5(b) (now RPC 5.5(a)(2)) (assisting non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law), and RPC 8.4(a) (assisting another to violate the RPCs);
And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that on reinstatement to the practice of law, respondent should be required to practice under supervision;
And the Court having determined from its review of the record that the appropriate quantum of discipline for respondent's unethical conduct is a three-month suspension from practice;
And good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that MARIA INES GONZALEZ is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective February 24, 2007; and it is further
ORDERED that on reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court;
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.