| Case Digest |
By order filed July 12, 2000, the Supreme Court of New Jersey suspended Respondent for six months for gross neglect / pattern of neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, failure to deliver funds to a third party and failure to return client file and/or otherwise protect client’s interests on termination of representation. The Supreme Court of New Jersey filed a second order on July 12, 2000, suspending Respondent for six months for gross neglect / pattern of neglect, lack of diligence, failure to communicate, failure to reduce basis of fee to writing, failure to return client file and/or otherwise protect client’s interests on termination of representation and failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities. The two six month suspensions were to run concurrently. The New Jersey Supreme Court also ordered that prior to reinstatement to practice respondent be required to demonstrate by competent proof that he is psychologically fit to practice law.
By order filed November 22, 2000, the Supreme Court of New Jersey once again suspended Respondent for a period of six months effective August 1, 2000 for gross neglect / pattern of neglect, lack of diligence, failure to expedite litigation, failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
By Notice and Order dated April 17, 2001, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court directed Respondent to show cause why the imposition of identical or comparable discipline in this Commonwealth would be unwarranted. Respondent did not file a response to the Rule to show Cause.
By order date July 10, 2001, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended Respondent for three concurrent periods of six months. The Court further noted that its previous order of August 25, 1999 placing Respondent on temporary suspension was to remain in effect until further order of the Court. |
