Case Name: EDMOND J. DWYER AND ALBERT C. LISBONA, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FRED W. JUNG, JR. AND JUNG AND HOWARD, A PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1975-11-19
Citations: 137 N.J. Super. 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDMOND J. DWYER AND ALBERT C. LISBONA, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. FRED W. JUNG, JR. AND JUNG AND HOWARD, A PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.