In re Gensib

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Gensib

886 A.2d 632, 185 N.J. 344, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 1498

DecidedDecember 7, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 886 A.2d 632 (In re Gensib) 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 Gensib, 886 A.2d 632, 185 N.J. 344, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 1498 (N.J. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 05-222, concluding that CARL D. GENSIB of NORTH BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 4.1(a)(1) (false statement of material fact to a third party), RPC 8.4(a) (violation of Rules of Professional Conduct), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct [345]*345involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CARL D. GENSIB 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 having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 05-222, concluding that CARL D. GENSIB of NORTH BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1990, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 4.1(a)(1) (false statement of material fact to a third party), RPC 8.4(a) (violation of Rules of Professional Conduct), and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct [345]*345involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that CARL D. GENSIB 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)

886 A.2d 632, 185 N.J. 344, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 1498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gensib-nj-2005.