From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Uffelman

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 10, 2009
200 N.J. 260 (N.J. 2009)

Summary

noting that a misrepresentation is always intentional "and does not occur simply because an attorney is mistaken or his statement is later proved false, due to changed circumstances"

Summary of this case from In re Durkin

Opinion

September 10, 2009.


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 08-355, concluding that DAVID G. UFFELMAN, formerly of MORRISTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), and RPC 1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of the matter and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should provide proof of his fitness to practice law;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DAVID G. UFFELMAN is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that within sixty days after the filing date of this Order, respondent shall submit to the Office of Attorney Ethics proof of his fitness to practice law as attested to by a mental health professional approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics; 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.


Summaries of

In re Uffelman

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Sep 10, 2009
200 N.J. 260 (N.J. 2009)

noting that a misrepresentation is always intentional "and does not occur simply because an attorney is mistaken or his statement is later proved false, due to changed circumstances"

Summary of this case from In re Durkin

noting that a misrepresentation is always intentional "and does not occur simply because an attorney is mistaken or his statement is later proved false, due to changed circumstances;" the RPC 8.4(c) charge against the attorney was dismissed because his unmet assurances to the client that he was working on various aspects of the case were the result of gross neglect rather than dishonest conduct; reprimand for gross neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate with the client

Summary of this case from In re Laufer

noting that a misrepresentation is always intentional "and does not occur simply because an attorney is mistaken or his statement is later proved false, due to changed circumstances," we dismissed the RPC 8.4(c) charge against the attorney because his unmet assurances to the client that he was working on various aspects of the case were the result of gross neglect rather than dishonest conduct; reprimand for gross neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate with the client

Summary of this case from In re Bhalla

noting that a misrepresentation is always intentional "and does not occur simply because an attorney is mistaken or his statement is later proved false, due to changed circumstances;" the RPC 8.4(c) charge against the attorney was dismissed because his unmet assurances to the client that he was working on various aspects of the case were the result of gross neglect rather than dishonest conduct; reprimand for gross neglect, lack of diligence, and failure to communicate with the client

Summary of this case from In re Brown

noting that a misrepresentation is always intentional "and does not occur simply because an attorney is mistaken or his statement is later proved false, due to changed circumstances"

Summary of this case from In re Christie

imposing discipline based upon RPC 1.1, RPC 1.3 and RPC 1.4(b) after DRB dismissed RPC 8.4(c) charge in the absence of a finding of an intent to misrepresent

Summary of this case from In re Hyderally
Case details for

In re Uffelman

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF DAVID G. UFFELMAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Sep 10, 2009

Citations

200 N.J. 260 (N.J. 2009)
979 A.2d 329

Citing Cases

In re Woitkowski

See, e.g., In the Matter of Tv Hvderally, DRB 11-016 (July 12, 2011) (complaint charged attorney with RPC…

In re Tan

suit caused the dismissal of the client's complaint; the attorney took no steps to have it reinstated; also,…