New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Decisions 2017
Former Client Conflict of Interest; Lawyer at Law Firm That Represented Planning Board in Litigation Joining Firm that Represented Adverse Party
Date: December 13, 2017
Docket Number: acp7331 The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics received an inquiry from a lawyer who works for a law firm that represented a municipal planning board in lengthy and contentious litigation, a portion of which is still pending. A partner at the firm served as legal counsel for the planning board and Inquirer assisted the partner in various aspects of the litigation. The partner retired and the firm no longer serves as counsel for the planning board. Inquirer asked whether, if she leaves her current firm and joins the law firm that represents the adverse party in this litigation, there would be any restrictions on her practice or that of her new firm.
Date: December 13, 2017
Docket Number: acp7331 The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics received an inquiry from a lawyer who works for a law firm that represented a municipal planning board in lengthy and contentious litigation, a portion of which is still pending. A partner at the firm served as legal counsel for the planning board and Inquirer assisted the partner in various aspects of the litigation. The partner retired and the firm no longer serves as counsel for the planning board. Inquirer asked whether, if she leaves her current firm and joins the law firm that represents the adverse party in this litigation, there would be any restrictions on her practice or that of her new firm.
The opinions published on Justia State Caselaw are sourced from individual state court sites.
These court opinions may not be the official published versions, and you should check your local court rules before citing to them.
We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site,
or the information linked to on the state site.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
