Court Opinion

ID: 9637590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:11:26.882218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:19.235865
License: Public Domain

Pashman, J.
(concurring). I am cognizant that respondent was acquitted with respect to the' charge alleging a violation of DR 5-105 in that he sought to represent conflicting interests without having first secured the informed, express and uncoereed consent of both seller and buyer. In re Lanza, 65 N. J. 347 (1974); In re Kamp, 40 N. J. 588 (1963). This result was justified on the basis that payment by the buyer for the services respondent performed, did not establish an attorney-client relationship.
It is still virtually impossible for one attorney with undivided allegiance to represent both a buyer and seller. In re Lanza (concurring) at 65 N. J. 353-358. Dual representation should be totally forbidden.
Both parties must be safeguarded from abuses whether inadvertent or intentional. Any attorney or client who is *398foolhardy enough to believe that a buyer-seller situation is relatively problem free, is looking for trouble. These types of situations are just not that clear. The only thing that is readily apparent is that a danger of real conflict always exists, even though it may not be imminent or impending.
I incorporate herein the legal authorities and observations made in my concurring opinion in Lanza, supra.
I concur in the judgment of reprimand.
For reprimand — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Pasiiman and Clifford and Judge COLLESTER-7.
Opposed — None.