TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Klein

In the Matter of Michael Scott Klein, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 045221994)

In re Klein, 37 A.3d 449 (N.J. 2012)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 11, 2012
Docket
Nos. D-29 September Term 2011, 069447
Citations
37 A.3d 449209 N.J. 2342012 N.J. LEXIS 5

Opinion

ORDER The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 11-137, concluding that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20—13(c), MICHAEL SCOTT KLEIN of WARRINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1994, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years based on respondent’s plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C.

§ 7201 and to criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 371 , conduct that in New Jersey violates RPC 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that adversely reflects on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that MICHAEL SCOTT KLEIN is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further ORDERED that pursuant to Rule l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule l:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further *235 ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list