Case Title: In Re Turner

Citation: 416 A.2d 894, 83 N.J. 536

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 1980-07-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
83 N.J. 536 (1980) 416 A.2d 894 IN THE MATTER OF CORNELIUS F. TURNER, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW. The Supreme Court of New Jersey. Argued June 12, 1980. Decided July 22, 1980. *537 Colette A. Coolbaugh, Secretary, argued the cause for the Disciplinary Review Board. Charles A. Delehey, argued the cause for respondent (Lenox, Giordano, Devlin, Delehey & Socey, attorneys). *538 PER CURIAM. District III Ethics Committee, after hearing, filed a presentment against Cornelius F. Turner, Jr., a member of the bar of this State, finding that he had violated DR 1-102, DR 7-102(A)(7), and DR 9-102. The Disciplinary Review Board reached the same conclusions and recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his conduct, noting that respondent is no longer engaged in the private practice of law in New Jersey. We have reviewed the records made before the District III Ethics Committee and the Disciplinary Review Board and adopt the factual findings of the Board which read as follows: A lawyer has an obligation of being candid and fair with the court. As an officer of the court, his duty can be no less. In People v. Beattie, 137 Ill. 553, 574, 27 N.E. 1096, 1103 (Sup.Ct. 1891), the Court, commenting on this duty, wrote: Thus, the ABA Committee on Professional Ethics has held that it is improper in a foreclosure case to conceal from the court an arrangement under which each attorney would act as special master in all foreclosure actions instituted by the other and would allow the fee for such services to be retained by the attorney who brought the suit. American Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions, No. 94 (1933). This opinion rests on the premise that an attorney is under a duty, when the proper administration of justice so requires, to disclose all pertinent and relevant facts to the court so that it may act fairly. Ethical Considerations of the American Bar Association Code of Professional Responsibility likewise reflect that a lawyer should not suppress evidence that he has a legal obligation to reveal or produce when it interferes with the proper administration of justice. EC 7-27 to Canon 7 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility. Moreover, partial disclosures may at times result in misrepresentations due to the nondisclosure of material facts. The $6,000 check, an asset of Anchor Finance, was delivered to respondent during the luncheon break of the receivership hearing before Judge Lenox. Respondent knew the check represented monies due Anchor Finance. As an officer of the court, he had a duty to advise the court of this asset and until being advised of the court's disposition of the receivership application to hold the money in trust. Respondent's failure to do so constituted violations of DR 1-102, as conduct prejudicial *540 to the administration of justice, and of DR 7-102(A)(3), by failing to disclose that which he was required to reveal. It is also clear that respondent entered into the plan with William Valyo motivated by the desire to obtain the funds due for legal services rendered. We are not convinced that he assisted Valyo in conduct that the respondent knew was illegal. Though this resulted in a preference to respondent, we do not find that his conduct in this respect was fraudulent. See DR 7-102(A)(7). Respondent admittedly maintained no trust or business accounts. He was under a duty to do so. R. 1:21-6(a). Respondent is hereby reprimanded and ordered to reimburse the Administrative Office of the Courts for the costs of stenographic transcripts out of this disciplinary proceeding. For reprimand Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK 7. Opposed None.