Legal Opinion

Matter of Hoerst

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 18, 1994PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Per curiam

The Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE) brought a motion before the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB or Board), seeking final discipline based on respondent’s criminal conviction. See Rule 1:20—6(e)(2)(i). The DRB recommended that this Court impose a public reprimand, with two members voting to recommend a six-month suspension. Our independent review of the record leads to the conclusion that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

I

Respondent, Frank J. Hoerst, III, was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1974. In 1983 the Governor appointed him Prosecutor of Salem…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. TalleySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
  2. In Re MirabelliSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
  3. Matter of FarrSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1989
  4. Matter of WhitmoreSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990
  5. Matter of IuloSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1989

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In re ImbrianiSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997
  2. State v. PessolanoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001
  3. Matter of PepeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1995
  4. Matter of AsbellSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
  5. In re ObringerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1997

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API