Zealous Advocacy Claim Does Not Defeat Rule 4.2 Violation

The New Jersey Supreme Court has censured a criminal defense attorney who interviewed a co-defendant in an armed robbery case without permission of that person’s counsel.

The co-defendant had offered a guilty plea and was potentially a witness in the trial, which did not justify or excuse the jailhouse interview on Super Bowl Sunday 2011.

The attorney’s story

For his part, respondent testified that, although he did not have [counsel’s] consent to communicate with [co-defendant] Jackson, he went ahead and did so anyway because Jackson had become a witness and agent for the State, after he plead guilty, and because, as a zealous advocate for [his client], respondent believed that it was crucial for him to talk to Jackson.

The attorney’s testimony that he did not discuss the case with Jackson was “not true,” according to the report of the Disciplinary Review Board. The DRB found that Jackson sought to withdraw his plea based on information received from the attorney.

The attorney has no record of prior discipline. (Mike Frisch)