In re Gates

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Gates

725 A.2d 1122, 157 N.J. 638, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 267

DecidedMarch 25, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 725 A.2d 1122 (In re Gates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Gates, 725 A.2d 1122, 157 N.J. 638, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 267 (N.J. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on December 4, 1998, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that CLAYTON S. GATES of SHORT HILLS, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CLAYTON S. GATES is hereby reprimanded; 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board on December 4, 1998, having filed with the Court its decision concluding that CLAYTON S. GATES of SHORT HILLS, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1983, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) (gross neglect), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate), RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CLAYTON S. GATES is hereby reprimanded; 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 incurred in the prosecution of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 A.2d 1122, 157 N.J. 638, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gates-nj-1999.