Subsequently, during an interview to explore the facts underlying the latent or actual conflict between the attorney's representation of both Driver and Passenger, the Driver revealed to the attorney that Passenger had not been a passenger in Driver's vehicle at the time of the accident but that the Passenger's injuries for which the attorney had obtained payment had been caused in a prior accident not involving Driver. Driver further stated that Driver had misrepresented to Driver's PIP carrier that Passenger had been a passenger in Driver's motor vehicle at the time of the accident. The attorney has since advised Passenger that the attorney may no longer represent Passenger and will advise Driver to the same effect. These actions are entirely appropriate. Clearly, the attorney's services have been used to defraud Driver's PIP Carrier.
Disclosure is warranted under the rule.
An appropriate forum for such disclosure would be before the assignment judge of the county in which the actions were, or are to be commenced. It should be done upon notice to inquirer's adversary, the attorney for the Driver's PIP carrier and the former clients, or their new attorneys if they have been retained.