Case Summary: In the Matter of Howard M. Dorian

Factual and Procedural Background

This matter concerns Howard M. Dorian (Attorney No. 000381978) of Cliffside Park, admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1978. The Disciplinary Review Board filed with the Supreme Court of New Jersey its decision in DRB 02-254, concluding that Dorian should be reprimanded for violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct: RPC 1.5(b) (failure to promptly deliver funds to third person) and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities). On April 24, 2003, the Court entered an order reflecting the Disciplinary Review Board's decision and directing discipline and related relief.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Howard M. Dorian should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.5(b) (failure to promptly deliver funds to a third person).
2. Whether Howard M. Dorian should be reprimanded for violating RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities).
3. Whether the respondent's disciplinary record should be made a permanent part of his attorney file and whether he should reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of the matter.

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 based on the Disciplinary Review Board's decision in DRB 02-254, which concluded that respondent had violated RPC 1.5(b) and RPC 8.1(b). The opinion is an order adopting the Disciplinary Review Board's conclusion and, noting that "good cause" appeared, directed the specified disciplinary and administrative measures. The opinion itself contains no extended factual findings or a separate, detailed legal analysis by the Court beyond adopting the DRB's disposition.

Holding and Implications

REPRIMANDED.

Direct consequences ordered by the Court:

• The respondent, Howard M. Dorian, is formally reprimanded for the identified violations.
• The entire record of this matter is to be made a permanent part of respondent's file as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey.
• The respondent is ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

The opinion does not state or establish any broader legal precedent beyond the disposition of this disciplinary matter.