Opinion ID: 2325510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Asay Matter

Text: In March of 1974, the respondent represented Frederick K. Draper in connection with a dispute with Claude F. Asay, Jr. Asay was the principal in a corporation named Fidelity Alarm and Data Corporation (Fidelity), which was engaged in the business of providing investigative services and rendering private security services. Draper and Fidelity had entered into an agreement dated November 7, 1973, and Draper paid Fidelity $10,000 for the rights to what was a distributorship or franchise. Draper subsequently sought to dissolve that agreement. By letter of March 15, 1974, the respondent wrote to Carl P. Gross, Esq., attorney for Asay and his company, Fidelity, stating that unless Asay returned the $10,000 he was instructed by Draper to institute suit for fraud. By letter of May 3, 1974, respondent repeated his demand for the return of the money and again threatened suit for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract. In addition, respondent wrote: We are also pursuing the possibility of criminal action against Messrs. Olivera and Asay. Olivera was an employee of Fidelity. On June 18, 1974, Frederick Draper filed, in the Municipal Court of the Borough of Freehold, complaints against Asay and Olivera, charging them with having obtained the money by false promises, statements and representations in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:111-1. The civil dispute was settled, with Asay returning the money to Draper and Ewing. Thereafter, respondent asked the Freehold Borough Municipal Court to drop the criminal charges. The Committee concluded that the filing of the criminal complaint was obviously done for the purpose of effecting a settlement of the civil suit and that the letter of May 3, 1974 constituted a threat to present criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in a civil matter in violation of DR 7-105(A). We agree. A lawyer may not resort to coercive tactics of threatening criminal action in order to effect a civil settlement. Drinker, Legal Ethics (1953), p. 153. In re Dworkin, 16 N.J. 455, 456 (1954). Cf. In re Friedland, 59 N.J. 209 (1971) (outlining the lawyer's duties when criminal charges are to be dismissed). Respondent contends that his letter was nothing more than a statement of fact on his part about discussions with his client and that the evidence only sustains an impression on the part of Asay's attorney that criminal charges were threatened. DR 7-105(A) states that [a] lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges in a civil matter. Our independent evaluation of the record is in accord with the Committee's conclusion that, whatever respondent's personal state of mind, he engaged in activity proscribed by DR 7-105(A).