In re Klamo

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Klamo

671 A.2d 585, 143 N.J. 386, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 577

DecidedMarch 6, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 671 A.2d 585 (In re Klamo) 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 Klamo, 671 A.2d 585, 143 N.J. 386, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 577 (N.J. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having on January 11, 1996, filed with the Court its decision concluding that JOHN A. KLA-MO of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) [387]*387(gross neglect), RPC 1.15(a) (commingling of earned fees with trust account funds and negligent misappropriation), RPC 1.15(d) (failure to maintain records required by Rule 1:21-6) and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN A. KLAMO 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 on January 11, 1996, filed with the Court its decision concluding that JOHN A. KLA-MO of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.1(a) [387]*387(gross neglect), RPC 1.15(a) (commingling of earned fees with trust account funds and negligent misappropriation), RPC 1.15(d) (failure to maintain records required by Rule 1:21-6) and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JOHN A. KLAMO 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)

671 A.2d 585, 143 N.J. 386, 1996 N.J. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-klamo-nj-1996.