Court Opinion

ID: 7328308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-25 22:03:43.810212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:20:05.555486
License: Public Domain

ORDER
The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 08-009 and DRB 08-010, concluding that WALTER D. NEALY of HACKENSACK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1988, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b) (failure to keep client informed about status of matter), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation);
And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that following reinstatement to practice, respondent should practice under supervision for a period of two years;
And good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that WALTER D. NEALY is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective August 11, 2008; and it is further
ORDERED that following his reinstatement to practice, respondent shall practice law under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics for a period of two years and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Rule l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement *153for 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 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.