Legal Opinion
In Re Convery
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided February 2, 2001PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Per 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 against respondent Samuel V. Convery, Jr. pursuant to Rule 1:20-13(c)(2). The OAE based its motion on respondent’s conviction for promising employment or other benefit as consideration for any “political activity” in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 600 (the Hatch Act). The conviction constitutes a violation of RPC 8.4(b), which states that it is professional misconduct…
2Cases cited25 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
- In Re VerdiramoSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
- Russell v. Tenafly Bd. of AdjustmentSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- In Re BrickerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In Re WigentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
- Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010
- In Re ConverySupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
- In Re WigentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2012