# In Re Furino

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · May 2, 2012 · 210 N.J. 124

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2297284

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of Ralph v. Furino, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 000131981)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** May 2, 2012
- **Citations:** 210 N.J. 124; 42 A.3d 139; 2012 N.J. LEXIS 507; 2012 WL 1537807
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2297284

## Opinion text

ORDER
The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 11-391, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to
Rule
1:20—4(f)(1) (default by respondent), that RALPH Y. FURINO of JAMESBURG, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violation of
RPC
8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities);
And the Disciplinary Review Board having further concluded that the term of suspension should be consecutive to the term of suspension for the unethical conduct found in DRB 11-176 and 11-205;
And the Court this date having ordered in D-46-11 that respondent be suspended from practice for a period of three months for the unethical conduct found in DRB 11-176 and DRB 11-205;
And good cause appearing;
*125
It is ORDERED that RALPH V. FURINO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective August 3, 2012, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the Order of the Court in D-46-11; 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(e); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to
Rule
1:10-2; 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 Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in
Rule
1:20-17.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2297284. Public record. Not legal advice.