In re Tutt

Supreme Court of New Jersey

In re Tutt

784 A.2d 67, 170 N.J. 63, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 1392

DecidedNovember 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 784 A.2d 67 (In re Tutt) 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 Tutt, 784 A.2d 67, 170 N.J. 63, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 1392 (N.J. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 01-274, concluding that JAMES P. TUTT of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.8(e) (providing financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation) and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JAMES P. TUTT is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[64]*64ORDERED 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 01-274, concluding that JAMES P. TUTT of NEWARK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1985, should be reprimanded for violating RPC 1.8(e) (providing financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation) and RPC 8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that JAMES P. TUTT is hereby reprimanded; and it is further

[64]*64ORDERED 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)

784 A.2d 67, 170 N.J. 63, 2001 N.J. LEXIS 1392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tutt-nj-2001.