From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Vaughn

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 2, 1991
589 A.2d 610 (N.J. 1991)

Summary

adopting DRB's recommendation publicly to reprimand attorney who had taken fees without notice or authorization, had failed to provide formal accounting, to keep client informed, and to act with due diligence; had displayed pattern of neglect; and had failed to reply to DEC investigator

Summary of this case from In re Ort

Opinion

May 2, 1991.


ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Court, recommending that DWAYNE C. VAUGHN of STONE MOUNTAIN, GEORGIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, be publicly reprimanded for failing to provide a final, formal accounting of funds held for a client, when requested, in violation of RPC 1.15(b), for taking legal fees and costs without actual notice to and specific authorization by the client in violation of RPC 1.15(c), for failing to act with due diligence in three matters ( Farmer, Thurman, and Wright) in violation of RPC 1.3, for failing to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their matters in Farmer, Thurman, and Wright and Popick, in violation of RPC 1.4(a), for displaying a pattern of neglect in those matters in violation of RPC 1.1(b), for failing to reply to the ethics committee investigator's letters and to file an answer to an ethics complaint in violation of RPC 8.1(b);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having concluded that certain mitigating factors were shown; to wit: the narrow time frame within which respondent's aberrational negligence occurred, respondent's attitude toward the practice of law at the time of his lapses, and respondent's candor, contrition and remorse for said events;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review are adopted and DWAYNE C. VAUGHN is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

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 shall reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.


Summaries of

Matter of Vaughn

Supreme Court of New Jersey
May 2, 1991
589 A.2d 610 (N.J. 1991)

adopting DRB's recommendation publicly to reprimand attorney who had taken fees without notice or authorization, had failed to provide formal accounting, to keep client informed, and to act with due diligence; had displayed pattern of neglect; and had failed to reply to DEC investigator

Summary of this case from In re Ort
Case details for

Matter of Vaughn

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF DWAYNE C. VAUGHN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: May 2, 1991

Citations

589 A.2d 610 (N.J. 1991)
589 A.2d 610

Citing Cases

In re Ort

In both instances, respondent disregarded his ethical responsibilities to his client, conduct that cannot be…

Matter of Banas

On the facts of this case, a reprimand should suffice. In rePressler, 132 N.J. 155, 623 A.2d 770 (1993); In…