In The Matter Of Daniel David Hediger

Citation997 A.2d 225,202 N.J. 336
PartiesIn the Matter of Daniel David HEDIGER, an Attorney at Law.
Decision Date19 July 2010
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

202 N.J. 336
997 A.2d 225

In the Matter of Daniel David HEDIGER, an Attorney at Law.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 19, 2010.
Page 336 ORDER


The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB-10-054, concluding that DANIEL DAVID HEDIGER of EDGEWATER, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1995, should be censured for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence);

And the Disciplinary Review Board further concluded that respondent should continue to practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics as ordered by the Court on July 17, 2007;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that DANIEL DAVID HEDIGER is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall continue to practice under the supervision of a practicing attorney approved by the Office of Attorney Ethics until the further Order of the Court; 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 reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Commit tee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re Hediger
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 1 de novembro de 2022
    ... In the Matter of Daniel David Hediger An Attorney at Law No. DRB 22-071 Supreme Court of New Jersey November 1, ... ...
  • In re Cerza
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 19 de julho de 2010
    ...N.J. 337997 A.2d 225 In the Matter of John E. CERZA, an Attorney at Law. Supreme Court of New Jersey.July 19, 2010.Page 337 ORDER The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 997 A.2d 226 10-027, concluding that JOHN E. CERZA of BLOOMFIELD, who was admitted ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT