From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Mclaughlin

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 11, 2004
179 N.J. 314 (N.J. 2004)

Opinion

March 11, 2004


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 03-236, concluding MICHAEL A. McLAUGHLIN, SR., of KENILWORTH, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1999, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that respondent should be required to continue filing with the Supreme Court Committee on Character quarterly reports attesting to respondent's compliance with the Court's Order filed September 21, 1999, that requires respondent to refrain from the use of alcohol and other intoxicating substances and continue to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous on a regular basis for an additional period of two years;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL A. McLAUGHLIN, SR., is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to file quarterly reports with the Committee on Character as ordered by the Court on September 21, 1999, for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; 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 cost incurred in the prosecution of this matter.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Mclaughlin

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 11, 2004
179 N.J. 314 (N.J. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Mclaughlin

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL A. MCLAUGHLIN, SR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 11, 2004

Citations

179 N.J. 314 (N.J. 2004)
845 A.2d 585

Citing Cases

In re Vaccaro

RPC 8.4(c), and RPC 8.4(d); in mitigation, we found that the attorney's actions were motivated by a…

In re Sklar

(a), RPC 8.4(c), and RPC 8.4(d); in mitigation, we found that respondent's actions were motivated by a…