Legal Opinion

Matter of Noonan

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided April 3, 1986PublishedCited by 102 opinions

1Per curiam

We concur with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) in this matter that the respondent John W. Noonan’s temporary suspension from the practice of law for a period of more than four years is sufficient discipline. We add the following in order to clarify the treatment of the misappropriation issue involved in this case.

In addition to the complaints against respondent initiated by numerous complainants, the Division of Ethics and Professional Services (DEPS), the predecessor of the Office of Attorney Ethics, filed a complaint that charged misappropriation (in addition to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. In Re WilsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1979
  2. In Re HughesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  3. Matter of TempletonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  4. In Re GoldstaubSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  5. In Re StoutSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1978

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

3Cited by102 opinions

  1. Matter of AddamsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Attorney Grievance Commission v. GlennCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1996
  3. People v. VaralloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  4. Matter of HeinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
  5. Matter of GreenbergSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998

97 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