Double Censure

A censure in New Jersey became a reciprocal censure in New York for a rather obvious conflict of interest.

The Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department

The respondent was censured by order of the New Jersey Supreme Court filed July 15, 2015. The facts in the New Jersey disciplinary proceeding were presented as follows: The respondent represented both the buyer and the seller in a real estate transaction on March 9, 2004, without disclosing the conflict to the parties or receiving written consent from them for the dual representation. The respondent had represented the buyer over the course of 25 years, predominantly in real estate matters. In the transaction at issue, the buyer purchased the seller’s redemption rights to her mortgage at a time when the seller was about to lose her home to foreclosure. The buyer agreed to allow the seller to remain in the house for a short time, to pay some of the seller’s bills, and to eventually help her to move. The respondent admittedly represented the seller after the transaction. Specifically, he helped her recover some monies from her prior attorney, drafted a will for her with a health care proxy, and addressed issues she had with her son, including removing the son from her house and, ultimately, cutting off all ties with him.

In June 2009, the seller commenced a malpractice action against the respondent. In the course of discovery, the respondent knowingly concealed the name of his malpractice insurance carrier from the seller’s counsel and was untruthful in his discovery responses. The respondent admitted to the New Jersey ethics committee investigating his misconduct that he wrongfully failed to produce his malpractice policy information and to timely file a notice of claim with his malpractice insurance carrier.

(Mike Frisch)