Case ID: nj-super_137/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDMOND J. DWYER AND ALBERT C. LISBONA, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FRED W. JUNG, JR. AND JUNG AND HOWARD, A PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
    Superior Court oí New Jersey Appellate Division
    Argued November 5, 1975
    Supplemental Material Submitted November 7, 1975
    Decided November 19, 1975.
    
      Before Judges Kolovsky, Bischoff and Botter.
    
      Mr. S. M. Chris Franzblau argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Franzblau, Falkin & DiMarzio, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Joseph C. Glavin, Jr. argued the cause for respondents.
   Per Curiam.

With leave of the Supreme Court, defendants’ appeal from an interlocutory order entered in the trial court. By that order the trial court declared void as against public policy a restrictive covenant contained in the partnership agreement of the former law firm known as Jung, Dwyer & Lisbona. That covenant sought to allocate designated clients to individual partners upon termination of the partnership, unrelated to retirement of a partner, and sought, for a period of five years, to restrict each partner from doing business with a client designated as belonging to another partner.

Substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Kimmel-man’s opinion, reported at 133 N. J. Super. 343 (Ch. Div. 1975), we hold that this covenant violates DR 2-108(A) of the Disciplinary Rules adopted by our Supreme Court and is unenforceable.

Affirmed.