In re Klamo
This text of 175 A.3d 966 (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.
Opinion
ORDER
The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 16-443, concluding on the record certified by the Board pursuant Rule 1:20—4(f) (default by respondent), that JOHN A. KLAMO of CHERRY HILL, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1982, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating RPC l.l(a)(gross neglect), RPC 1.2(a)(failure to abide by a client’s decision concern[396]*396ing the scope and objectives of the representation), RPC 1.3 (lack of diligence), RPC 1.4(b)(failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter), RPC 5.5(a) and Rule 1:21— lA(a)(3)(unauthorized practice of law), RPC 8.4(c)(conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and RPC 8.4(d)(conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); and good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that JOHN A. KLAMO is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months, effective February 9, 2018, and until the further Order of the Court; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 1:20—20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule 1:20—20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(d); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
175 A.3d 966, 231 N.J. 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-klamo-nj-2018.