Case ID: nj_185/html/0133-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

881 A.2d 1241
    IN THE MATTER OF DAVID S. SILVERMAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 245381971).
    September 21, 2005.
   ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 04-408, concluding that DAVID S. SILVERMAN of CLIFTON, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1971, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months for violating RPC 7.2(c) (a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services) and RPC 7.3(d) (a lawyer shall not compensate or give anything of value to a person to recommend or secure the lawyer’s employment by a client or as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting in the lawyer’s employment by a client);

And DAVID S. SILVERMAN having been ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined;

And the Court having determined from its review of the matter that a one-year suspension from practice is warranted;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DAVID S. SILVERMAN is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and until the further Order of the Court, effective October 21, 2005; 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 be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to Rule l:20-20(e), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule l: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 respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.