From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of Spector

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 13, 2004
178 N.J. 261 (N.J. 2004)

Opinion

D-22 September Term 2003

January 13, 2004.


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 03-041, concluding that BRIAN D. SPECTOR of FLORHAM PARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.15(b) (failure to promptly notify a client or third person of the receipt of funds in which the client or third person has an interest and failure to deliver funds that the client or third person is entitled to receive), RPC 1.15(c) (failure to safeguard funds in which an attorney and a third person claim interest) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that BRIAN D. SPECTOR is hereby reprimanded; 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.


Summaries of

In the Matter of Spector

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jan 13, 2004
178 N.J. 261 (N.J. 2004)
Case details for

In the Matter of Spector

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF BRIAN D. SPECTOR, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (Attorney No…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Jan 13, 2004

Citations

178 N.J. 261 (N.J. 2004)
839 A.2d 49

Citing Cases

In re Speck

See, e.g., In re Bromberg, 152 N.J. 382 (1998) (attorney's belief that he owned a partnership interest in a…

In re Nicholson

Ibid. Glick, too, received a reprimand. See also In re Spector, 178 N.J. 261 (2004) (reprimand for attorney…