Attorneys Must Remember the Fundamentals
The censure of an attorney by the New Jersey Supreme Court for a concurrent conflict of interest emphasizes that attorneys may occasionally violate the most fundamental principles of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
December 20, 2020 at 09:00 AM
3 minute read
The censure of an attorney by the New Jersey Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2020, for a concurrent conflict of interest, in violation of RPC 1.7(a)(2), emphasizes that attorneys may occasionally violate the most fundamental principles of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In In re Fusco, the respondent engaged in a concurrent conflict of interest by accepting a retainer to represent an imprisoned defendant in seeking to reinstate his appeal from a conviction, after the appeal had been dismissed for lack of prosecution, and to simultaneously represent the attorney who had originally represented him on the appeal. According to the report and recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, posted with the Supreme Court order under attorney discipline opinions on the judiciary website, the respondent was retained to seek reinstatement of the appeal and to represent the attorney originally retained to handle the appeal in connection with a possible malpractice or ethics complaint. The attorney who retained respondent paid him by personal credit card using funds with which he was originally retained. The criminal defendant's mother sought a return of the retainer after yet another attorney was retained to prosecute the appeal. The respondent admitted that he never advised the family that he had been retained by the original attorney or of the dual representation.
Despite a disciplinary history of three prior infractions, the respondent received a censure, over the dissent of two DRB members who voted for a year suspension. The disciplinary history was an aggravating factor that increased the discipline from a reprimand ordinarily imposed for such a concurrent conflict of interest. However, the DRB also found mitigating factors affecting the appropriate discipline. The respondent's "actual representation" of the prior counsel was "short-lived" because of the retention of another attorney, and "respondent readily admitted his misconduct in th[e] matter and returned the entire $15,000 retainer to" the family of the criminal defendant.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Parties’ Reservation of Rights Defeats Attempt to Enforce Settlement in Principle
- 2ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 3States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 4Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 5Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250