It was not too long ago that New Jersey had one of the strictest standards for assessing attorney conflicts of interest under the “appearance of impropriety” test laid out in Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co ., 109 N.J. 201, 212 (1988). Even though that standard was formally abandoned in the 2004 amendments to New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), disqualification issues continued to be influenced by Dewey . However, recent decisions have dramatically changed the landscape involving attorney conflicts of interest.
Conflicts with Former Clients Under RPC 1.9(a)
RPC 1.9(a) provides that “[a] lawyer who has represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another client in the same or substantially related matter in which that client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client.” In City of Atlantic City v. Trupos , 201 N.J. 447 (2010), the Supreme Court held that a law firm’s prior, long-standing representation of the city on tax appeals did not preclude the law firm from, thereafter, representing taxpayers on tax appeals against the city. The Court held thatthe former client that is moving for disqualification has the burden of proving , as a matter of fact and “ without conjecture or speculation “ that:
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
