In re Breidt
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On. order to show canse why the respondents should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined and punished.
1Opinion of the Court
Walker, Chancellor.
Jacob Lubetkin and Joseph B. Breidt, solicitors of this court, were ordered to show cause why they should not be adjudged *223guilty of malpractice, and why, on account of such malpractice, they should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined and punished. They each filed an affidavit, admitting the facts recited in the order, on which the charge of misconduct is based, disclaiming any intentional wrong-doing and apologizing to the court. They appeared by counsel and were heard in open court.
The facts are these: The respondent Lubetkin presented a bill of complaint to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People ex rel. Healy v. MacauleyIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- People ex rel. Colorado Bar Ass'n v. WaldronSupreme Court of Colorado · 1901
3Cited by8 opinions
- In Re TraskHawaii Supreme Court · 1963
- Commonwealth v. LardoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- In re CoughlinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
- In Re KuglerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1938
- Commonwealth v. LardoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.