In re Goldfarb

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Goldfarb

576 A.2d 872, 120 N.J. 335, 1990 N.J. LEXIS 312

DecidedJuly 23, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 576 A.2d 872 (In re Goldfarb) 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 Goldfarb, 576 A.2d 872, 120 N.J. 335, 1990 N.J. LEXIS 312 (N.J. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This matter having been submitted to the Court on the report of the Disciplinary Review Board recommending that SALVATORE J. BATE and RONALD C. GOLDFARB, formerly partners together in ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, each be publicly repri[336]*336manded for flagrant recordkeeping violations, in violation of RPC 1.15(a) and (d)

And it further appearing that the foregoing misconduct, taken in consideration with respondents’ admissions of noncompliance with recordkeeping requirements and their implementation of a system to bring their recordkeeping into full compliance, calls for the imposition of a public reprimand; and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board are adopted and RONALD C. GOLDFARB is hereby publicly reprimanded; and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said RONALD C. GOLDFARB as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

ORDERED that RONALD C. GOLDFARB reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for his share of the appropriate administrative costs.

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