Legal Opinion

Matter of Ort.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided October 8, 1993PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

This attorney-disciplinary proceeding arose from respondent’s representation of Mrs. Sophie Sawulak in the settlement of her late husband’s estate. The grievance originated as a fee-arbitration matter. The Fee Arbitration Committee administratively dismissed the matter and referred it to the Office of Attorney Ethics.

The District X Ethics Committee (DEC) concluded that respondent had violated RPC 1.4(a) and (b) (failure to communicate); RPC 1.5(a) (unreasonable fee) and RPC 1.5(b) (failure to communicate basis or rate of fee); and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Matter of KushnerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
  2. Matter of SteinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  3. In Re LoringSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1977
  4. In Re WolkSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1980
  5. Matter of LunnSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1990

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. MATTER OF LaVIGNESupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
  2. In re La VigneSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
  3. In re MaguireSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
  4. JOHN MROZ VS. ETHEL HANDLER (C-0097-15, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2017
  5. William S. Wong v. Terry RamnananDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API