Opinion ID: 1925938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The remaining misconduct charges: conflicts of interest.

Text: The Master agreed that respondent should have disclosed his interests as required by the municipal code, and that his inordinate delay in preparing a deed to his partner    resulted in a loss of tax revenue to the Township. The Master concluded that respondent violated DR 1-102(A)(1), DR 5-101(A) (requiring disclosure of interest that may affect representation, and client's consent) and DR 5-107(A)(2) (requiring the avoidance of influence on client's matter by one other than the client). The Master also found that respondent's conduct in unreasonably retaining the files of his former client was a violation of DR 1-102(A)(1), (5), and (6). Finding no clear and convincing demonstration that the hotel and restaurant bills paid by respondent were for corrupt purposes, the Master dismissed these allegations. Finally, the Master found no secret or privileged information in the affidavit supplied by respondent to a litigant; he thus found no violation of DR 4-101 in connection with this incident.