Legal Opinion
In Re Convery
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided February 2, 2001Published
1Opinion of the Court
765 A.2d 724 (2001)
166 N.J. 298
In the Matter of Samuel CONVERY, Jr., an Attorney at Law.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued September 26, 2000.
Decided February 2, 2001.
Richard J. Engelhardt, Deputy Ethics Counsel, argued the cause on behalf of the Office of Attorney Ethics.
John D. Arseneault, Chatham, argued the cause for respondent (Arseneault & Fassett, attorneys).
2Per curiam
This disciplinary proceeding arises from a Motion for Final Discipline Based Upon a Criminal Conviction filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics ("OAE") before the Disciplinary Review Board ("DRB"). The OAE moved for final discipline…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
3Cases cited34 opinions
- Kramer v. BD. OF ADJUST., SEA GIRT.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
- Schmidt v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF NEWARKSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
- Carrino v. NovotnySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
- In Re VerdiramoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Russell v. Tenafly Bd. of AdjustmentSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.