Summary of Opinion: In the Matter of Leonard W. Kingsley (Attorney No. 046992006)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) filed decision DRB 10-056 with the Supreme Court of New Jersey, concluding that Leonard W. Kingsley of Collingswood, admitted to the New Jersey bar in 2006, should be censured for violating RPC 5.5(a)(1) (unauthorized practice of law) and RPC 5.5(a)(2) (assisting another in the unauthorized practice of law).

Respondent Leonard W. Kingsley was ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined. Following those proceedings, and with "good cause appearing," the Supreme Court issued an order imposing discipline.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether respondent Leonard W. Kingsley should be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, in light of the DRB's findings and recommendation.
2. Whether the DRB's conclusion that respondent violated RPC 5.5(a)(1) and RPC 5.5(a)(2) warrants the recommended sanction of censure.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's action was predicated on the Disciplinary Review Board's filed decision (DRB 10-056), which concluded that respondent violated RPC 5.5(a)(1) and RPC 5.5(a)(2). The opinion records that respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined, and that, after consideration, "good cause appearing," the Court adopted disciplinary measures.

The opinion itself sets out the dispositive factual-legal nexus succinctly: DRB found violations of the cited Rules of Professional Conduct relating to unauthorized practice of law and assisting others in such practice, and the Court, on the basis of the DRB's recommendation and the procedural show-cause process, imposed discipline. The opinion does not elaborate additional factual findings, evidentiary detail, or extended legal analysis beyond these determinations.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: Respondent Leonard W. Kingsley is hereby censured.

Direct consequences ordered by the Court:

• The respondent is censured for violations of RPC 5.5(a)(1) and RPC 5.5(a)(2).
• The entire record of the matter is to be made a permanent part of the respondent's file as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey.
• The respondent must reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, pursuant to Rule 1:20-17.

The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or establish any new precedent; its effect is the direct imposition of discipline and administrative consequences on the respondent.

Source document: Order of the Supreme Court of New Jersey dated January 5, 2011, in the matter of Leonard W. Kingsley (DRB 10-056).