Narrative Opinion Summary
Daniel B. Kelley, an attorney from Cherry Hill, who has been suspended from practicing law since May 19, 2014, is disbarred effective immediately. The Disciplinary Review Board recommended this action due to multiple violations, including failure to safeguard client funds (RPC 1.15(a)), failure to promptly deliver funds (RPC 1.15(b)), recordkeeping violations (RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6), failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities (RPC 8.1(b)), and conduct involving dishonesty and fraud (RPC 8.4(c)). Kelley did not appear to contest the order directing him to show cause regarding disbarment. The order also includes a permanent restraining order against him practicing law, requires compliance with Rule 1:20-20 for disbarred attorneys, makes the record of the case a permanent part of his file, and mandates reimbursement of administrative costs incurred during the proceedings to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee.
Legal Issues Addressed
Compliance Requirement for Disbarred Attorneyssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kelley is required to comply with Rule 1:20-20, which outlines procedures for disbarred attorneys.
Reasoning: The order also ... requires compliance with Rule 1:20-20 for disbarred attorneys.
Conduct Involving Dishonesty and Fraudsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kelley's disbarment was partly due to conduct involving dishonesty and fraud, violating RPC 8.4(c).
Reasoning: The Disciplinary Review Board recommended this action due to multiple violations, including conduct involving dishonesty and fraud (RPC 8.4(c)).
Disbarment for Ethical Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The attorney, Daniel B. Kelley, is disbarred due to multiple violations of professional conduct rules, including failure to safeguard client funds and dishonesty.
Reasoning: Daniel B. Kelley, an attorney from Cherry Hill, who has been suspended from practicing law since May 19, 2014, is disbarred effective immediately.
Failure to Cooperate with Disciplinary Authoritiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The disbarment was influenced by Kelley's failure to cooperate with authorities, violating RPC 8.1(b).
Reasoning: The Disciplinary Review Board recommended this action due to multiple violations, including failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities (RPC 8.1(b)).
Failure to Promptly Deliver Fundssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Violations of RPC 1.15(b) were cited as Kelley failed to promptly deliver funds to clients, contributing to his disbarment.
Reasoning: The Disciplinary Review Board recommended this action due to multiple violations, including failure to promptly deliver funds (RPC 1.15(b)).
Failure to Safeguard Client Fundssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kelley violated RPC 1.15(a) by failing to properly safeguard client funds, leading to his disbarment.
Reasoning: The Disciplinary Review Board recommended this action due to multiple violations, including failure to safeguard client funds (RPC 1.15(a)).
Permanent Restraining Order Against Practicing Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A permanent restraining order was issued, prohibiting Kelley from practicing law.
Reasoning: The order also includes a permanent restraining order against him practicing law.
Recordkeeping Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kelley was found in violation of RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6 for failing to maintain proper records, which was a factor in his disbarment.
Reasoning: The Disciplinary Review Board recommended this action due to multiple violations, including recordkeeping violations (RPC 1.15(d) and Rule 1:21-6).
Record of Case as Permanent Part of Filesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The record of this disbarment case will be a permanent part of Kelley's file.
Reasoning: The order also ... makes the record of the case a permanent part of his file.
Reimbursement of Administrative Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Kelley is mandated to reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs incurred during the proceedings.
Reasoning: The order also ... mandates reimbursement of administrative costs incurred during the proceedings to the Disciplinary Oversight Committee.