In re Gottesman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Gottesman

885 A.2d 439, 185 N.J. 318, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 1471

DecidedNovember 16, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 885 A.2d 439 (In re Gottesman) 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 Gottesman, 885 A.2d 439, 185 N.J. 318, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 1471 (N.J. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 05-212, concluding that LEE D. GOTTESMAN of TOMS RIVER, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, should be censured for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), 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 LEE D. GOTTESMAN is hereby censured; 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 05-212, concluding that LEE D. GOTTESMAN of TOMS RIVER, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1981, should be censured for violating RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(a) (failure to communicate with client), 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 LEE D. GOTTESMAN is hereby censured; 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)

885 A.2d 439, 185 N.J. 318, 2005 N.J. LEXIS 1471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gottesman-nj-2005.