From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Jay

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
May 24, 2012
42 A.3d 886 (N.J. 2012)

Opinion

2012-05-24

In the Matter of Stuart W. JAY, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No. 022531987).


ORDER

The matter having been duly presented to the Court by the Disciplinary Review Board pursuant to Rule 1:20–10(b), on the granting of a motion for discipline by consent (DRB 11–424) of STUART W. JAY of WOODBURY, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1987;

And the Office of Attorney Ethics and respondent having signed a stipulation of discipline by consent in which it was agreed that respondent violated RPC 5.5(a)(1) (practicing law while ineligible);

And the parties having agreed that respondent's conduct violated RPC 5.5(a)(1), and that said conduct warrants a reprimand;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that a reprimand is the appropriate discipline for respondent's ethics violation and having granted the motion for discipline by consent;

And the Disciplinary Review Board having submitted the record of the proceedings to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for the entry of an order of discipline in accordance with Rule 1:20–16(e);

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that STUART W. JAY 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 and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20–17.


Summaries of

In re Jay

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
May 24, 2012
42 A.3d 886 (N.J. 2012)
Case details for

In re Jay

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Stuart W. JAY, an Attorney at Law (Attorney No…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Date published: May 24, 2012

Citations

42 A.3d 886 (N.J. 2012)
210 N.J. 214

Citing Cases

In re Gross

A reprimand is usually imposed when an attorney practices law while ineligible and is aware of the…

In re Zuvich

See, e.g., In re Frayne, 220 N.J. 23 (2014) (default; reprimand imposed on attorney who practiced law while…