Case Name: IN THE MATTER OF JOHN E. SELSER, CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, AND JOHN E. SELSER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1953-09-09
Citations: 27 N.J. Super. 257
Docket Number: 
Parties: IN THE MATTER OF JOHN E. SELSER, CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, AND JOHN E. SELSER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 257–276

Head Matter:
IN THE MATTER OF JOHN E. SELSER, CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, AND JOHN E. SELSER, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued July 13, 1953
Decided September 9, 1953.
Before Judges Eastwood, Joseph L. Smith and Haneman .
Mr. David H. Harris argued the cause for the petitionerappellant (Mr. Theodore D. Parsons, Attorney-General, and Mr. Albert, M. Ash, Deputy Attorney-General, attorneys).
Mr. Albert S. Gross argued the cause for the defendantrespondent (Mr. John E. Selser, attorney).
New Jersey State Bar Association, amicus curiae (Mr. Mendon Morrill and Mr. John M. Kaufman, attorneys).

Opinion:
Hanemah, J. S. C.
(temporarily assigned). On February 24, 1953 the defendant John E. Selser, a member of the Bar of the State of New Jersey, was called as a witness before the grand jury of Bergen County. TJpon being sworn by the foreman of said grand jury the following questions were propounded to him:
"Q. Well, just so we can clarify the record, I do want to ask you specifically if you will give us those names which' were disclosed to you by your clients, as to who was paid protection money, and ask you to answer that specific question."
"Q. Now, I would like to ask you a specific question for the record. Can you give us the names of the persons receiving political contributions on the State and County level as given to you by your so-called racketeer clients?"
"Q. Well, did he [Willie Moretti] tell you that he [Willie Moretti] had been to Mr. Dickerson's home?"
"Q. Did he [Willie Moretti] tell you also with reference to the fact that a conversation occurred between him [Willie Moretti] and Dickerson?"
The questions were propounded to the defendant by the grand j ary of Bergen County in connection with an investigation of gambling and law enforcement in said Bergen County, commenced by a special grand jury on January 2, 1951.
The defendant refused to answer each of said questions on the grounds that the information thus sought to be elicited was received by him as attorney for the respective parties mentioned in said questions and that therefore it was privileged and he was barred from furnishing the same unless his respective clients expressly waived the privilege.
Upon his refusal to furnish the answers to the questions so directed to him, a verified petition was filed by the Deputy Attorney-General, upon which an order was issued by J. Wallace Leyden, Superior Court Judge, directing him to show cause why he should not be ordered to answer the said questions.
Upon the filing of affidavits, the taking of testimony and argument of counsel, the said judge of the Superior Court discharged the order to show cause on the ground that there existed the relation of attorney and client between the said defendant and the persons from whom he had acquired the information sought and that such information was a privileged confidential .communication. The court further held that until the said clients expressly waived this privilege the defendant was barred from testifying.
The State here appeals from the order and judgment discharging the order to show cause.
The facts in connection herewith are as follows: On October 30, 1950 a complaint under oath was filed by Eugene A. Uaussling, Lieutenant of the New Jersey State Police, charging Joseph Doto, Salvatore Moretti, James P. Lynch, Arthur Longano and Anthony Guarini with conspiracy to keep and maintain a place to which persons might resort for the purpose of gambling. On the same date a warrant was issued against the aforesaid persons so charged. On October 31, 1950, at two o'clock in the morning, the defendant received a telephone call from one Guarino Moretti, also known as Millie Moretti (by which name he will hereafter be referred to), as a result of which he was retained by the said Millie Moretti as his attorney and as attorney for the other five above-named individuals. He was then informed that the above-named five individuals were about to be arrested on warrants charging them with violations of the gambling laws of the State of New Jersey. The said warrant was served upon Joseph Doto and Salvatore Moretti on October 31, 1950. On the same date Joseph Doto and Salvatore Moretti were produced by their attorney, John E. Selser, at 11 a. ir., and were arraigned on the said complaint and entered pleas of not guilty and bail was fixed. Thereafter, by arrangement with the said John E. Selser, who stated that he could not at that time get in touch with James P. Lynch and Arthur Longano, the said James P. Lynch and Arthur Longano were produced by the said John E. Selser on November 3, 1950 and vrere arraigned upon the said complaint aforesaid and entered pleas of not guilty and bail was fixed. Anthony Guarini, the other defendant against whom the said warrant was issued, was at the time of the issuance thereof confined in State Prison at Trenton under sentence previously imposed. The warrant against James P. Lynch and Arthur Longano was thereafter returned on November 3, 1950 by the said Eugene A. Haussling.
The above-named five defendants, with the exception of Willie Moretti, were subsequently indicted by the grand Jury of Bergen County,' to which they entered pleas of not guilty on January 26, 1951. On May 21, 1951 the said individuals retracted the aforesaid pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of non vult. They were sentenced on May 28, 1951. Willie Moretti, from and after October 30, 1950, was not charged nor arrested nor indicted in Bergen County until November 7, 1952. On that date the said Willie Moretti, who was then deceased, having been murdered by persons unknown, was indicted by the Bergen County grand jury, together with Harold John Adonis, Andrew Adonis and others whose names were not known to the grand jury at the time of the indictment, upon a charge of a continued conspiracy to obstruct the due administration of the laws of this State, which said conspiracy allegedly commenced in 1947 and continued thereafter.
Subsequent to October 31, 1950, according to the defendant, he had numerous conversations and conferences with all of the parties involved, and especially with Willie Moretti. According to the defendant, and there is no testimony to contradict this statement, the said Willie Moretti consulted him concerning various consummated transactions in which the said Willie Moretti had been involved and which he feared might result in his indictment by the said grand, jury.
The communications from Willie Moretti to the defendant as his attorney concerning thése facts and acts were of possible criminal conduct already accomplished, and the advice sought was in connection with past actions and not as to any future or prospective commission of crime. It is highly conceivable and entirely plausible that Willie Moretti, finding himself finally in the vulnerable position in which he stood, would have consulted the defendant prior to an actual complaint or indictment, having in mind the nature of the investigation being conducted. It was during these conferences that the defendant obtained the information sought by the grand jury.
In this posture of the case, it must be concluded that the defendant represented all of the above-named parties, not only in connection with the crime for which the five of them were indicted, but as well in connection with other matters in which they were involved and for which they might be indicted, including the corruption or bribery of public officials.
The affidavits filed by the defendant and the testimony are replete with statements which show that the relationship of attorney and client for the above purposes existed between the defendant and the six named individuals. As a matter of fact, the Deputy Attorney-General in his examination of Mr. Selser frequently referred to Willie Moretti and the five other named individuals as Mr. Selser's "clients." Nowhere in its brief does the State dispute this relationship of attorney and client.
The basis for the privilege accorded communications from a client to an attorney are very aptly stated in Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. 455 (Ch. 1891).
Initially, the privilege of a communication by a client to his attorney was objective rather than subjective. It involved a consideration for the oath and honor of the attorney rather than for the apprehension of his client. In the early part of the 18th Century there was developed a new theory upon which this privilege was bottomed, providing subjectively for the client's freedom of apprehension in consulting his legal adviser. Since then, however, by gradual development, the essential requisites preceding the valid interposition of such a privilege, and the privilege itself, have become recognized to be as follows:
"(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived."
8 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed.), p. 558.
In State v. Loponio, 85 N. J. L. 357 (E. & A. 1913), the court said:
"Where, therefore (enlarging somewhat upon the language of Professor Wigmore), legal advice of any kind is sought from a duly-accredited professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, the communications relevant to that purpose, made in confidence by the client, are at his instance permanently protected from disclosure by himself, or by the legal adviser, or by the agent of either confidentially used to transmit the communications, except the client waives the protection. Wigm. Ev., sec. 2292; Hatton v. Robinson, 14 Pick. 416, 31 Mass. 416."
The Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association, made a part of the rules promulgated and adopted by our Supreme Court, provide, in part, as follows:
"It is the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client's confidence. This duty outlasts the lawyer's employment, and extends as well to his employees; and neither of them should accept employment which involves or may involve the disclosure or use of these confidences, either for the private advantage of the lawyer or his employees or to the disadvantage of the client, without his knowledge and consent, and even though there are other available sources of such information. A lawyer should not continue employment when he discovers that his obligation prevents the performance of his full duty to his former or to his new client.
If a lawyer is accused by his client, he is not precluded from disclosing the truth in respect to the accusation. The announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidence which he is bound to respect. He may properly make such disclosures as may be necessary to prevent the act or protect those against whom it is threatened."
There were here present both the professional confidence and professional employment which would ordinarily make the communications confidential and would bar the defendant from testifying, absent an express waiver from his clients. The facts disclose the requirements listed as 1 to 5 in the above quotation from Professor Wigmore.
The main contention of the State, however, is that, conceding the relationship of attorney and client, the information imparted -to Mr. Selser was
"given for an unlawful or fraudulent purpose, and was not furnished by the said persons for any lawful purpose nor for the purpose of preparing a lawful defense nor for the purpose of assisting the defense of the other defendants aforesaid, who were all charged, pursuant to the indictments indicated hereinabove, with conspiracy to maintain a place where persons might resort for the purpose of gambling, and individually with the maintenance of various places where persons might and did resort for the purpose of gambling."
The State relies heavily upon the following quotation from Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. 455 (Ch. 1891) :
"Til order that Ihe rule may apply, there must be both professional confidence and professional employment, but if the client has a criminal object in view in his communications with his solicitor, one of these elements must necessarily be absent. The client must either conspire with his solicitor or deceive him. If his criminal object is avowed, the client does not consult his adviser professionally, because it cannot be the solicitor's business to further any criminal object. If the client does not avow his object he reposes no confidence, for the state of facts, which is the foundation of the supposed confidence, does not exist. The solicitor's advice is obtained by a fraud."
and upon similar language in In the Matter of Stein, 1 N. J. 228 (1949).
There can be no doubt, however, that if the advice sought by Willie Moretti was in furtherance of the commission of a crime or the perpetration of a fraud, whether this purpose were known to his attorney or not, that the privilege would not extend to such communications. Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 N. J. Eq. 455 (Ch. 1891) ; In the Matter of Stein. 1 N. J. 228 (1949). See also Russell v. Second National Bank of Paterson, 136 N. J. L. 270 (E. & A. 1947); State v. Krich, 123 N. J. L. 519 (Sup. Ct. 1939).
The theory of the State is that Willie Moretti was a participant in a conspiracy to corrupt public officials and that the last alleged overt act in that connection occurred some 10 or 12 days subsequent to the retention of the defendant as his attorney when the said Willie Moretti approached one John J. Dickerson with the avowed intent and purpose of attempting to have him intercede "to have the grand jury go easy on him in the light of the fact that he had been contributing this money."
The appellant has further stated its position in the following language in its brief:
"Any information imparted to Selser by Guarino (Willie) Moretti in connection with the identity of individuals to whom protection money was paid and the individuals who received from Moretti cash political contributions could only have been in connection with and in a discussion of and in furtherance of Moretti's expressed or concealed intention to obstruct the 'administration of the laws by exerting unlawful and corrupt influence by means of John J. Dickerson who at the time of the discussion with Moretti in this regard was the Chairman of the State Republican Committee. This purpose and intention on Moretti's part is demonstrated in his conversation with Mr. Dickerson on November 12, 1950, some twelve days following the issuance of warrants against Joseph Doto, et ais. (A5a and A7a)."
The State suggests that the conclusion of a fraudulent or criminal intent must be arrived at solely because of the proximity of the dates of the consultation with counsel (John E. Selser) and the conference with John J. Dickerson for the above avowed purpose. The record is bare of any proof as to what type of advice was or might have been given by the defendant to the said Willie Moretti in furtherance of his alleged criminal conduct. Actually, it is difficult to conceive what type of advice the defendant could have given Willie Moretti in connection with his future attempt to influence John J. Dickerson to obstruct the due administration of justice by exerting the unlawful and corrupt -influence upon him, unless it is implied that the defendant advised and counselled the said Willie Moretti to so intercede with said John J. Dickerson. Although such a conclusion was disavowed by the State upon the oral argument, the innuendo to that effect remains present. Such a conclusion may not be based upon innuendo alone.
The State has failed to prove that the information was imparted by Willie Moretti for the purpose of the prospective commission of a crime or the perpetration of a fraud. There is lacking any proof which would vitiate the privileged nature of the disclosure to the defendant.
As above noted, this privilege is a privilege of the client and not of the attorney. The privilege is not availed of by the affirmative action of the client in objecting to a question propounded to his attorney, but rather by the affirmative action of the attorney in refusing to answer, which latter course he is ethically bound to pursue. The attorney is barred from testifying as to such communications, not by reason of the affirmative objection of the client, but is barred as a matter of course unless and until the client himself affirmatively waives the privilege. It becomes the duly of the attorney to refuse to answer a question which would elicit from him confidential communications received from a client unless and until the client expressly so waives such privilege. This arises not only from the principles set forth in the above cited eases, but as well by reason of Canon 37 of the above cited Canons of Professional Ethics. It appears as well that although such waiver must be expressly made by the client during his lifetime, if he be living, at his death such client's personal representative must so waive. 8 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd ed.), p. 634.
Therefore, in the light of the failure of the appellant to obtain an express waiver from the executor or administrator of the said Willie Moretti, the defendant was bound, as a member of the Bar of this State, under the facts here present, to refuse to answer the propounded questions.
The order and judgment will therefore be affirmed.