Skip to content
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

No Relief For Lawyer-Client Collusion

The New Jersey Appellate Division denied post-conviction relief to a murder defendant who was represented at trial by an attorney who later had some difficulties himself

The charges stemmed from the shooting death of Rahman Jenkins in the parking lot of the Baxter Terrace apartment complex in Newark. Defendant was represented by Paul W. Bergrin, who, after defendant’s conviction and sentence, was suspended from the practice of law in this State, convicted of federal criminal offenses, and incarcerated in a federal prison for life.

 The court rejected the attempt to press a conflict that arose during the proceedings over witness tampering allegations

Defendant waived any conflict of interest when he advised the court that he wanted Bergrin to continue representing him. In addition, the ECPO investigation report reveals that defendant was the focus of witness tampering, not Bergrin, and none of the witnesses the ECPO interviewed implicated Bergrin in defendant’s witness tampering scheme. Moreover, the State did not rely on the ECPO investigation to disqualify Bergrin, and there never was any determination that Bergrin was involved in defendant’s witness tampering.

The charges against Bergrin came later and it was the defendant who had himself engaged in misconduct

There is no doubt that defendant tampered with witnesses, but there is no competent evidence that Bergrin was directly or indirectly involved. Even if Bergrin was involved, defendant is not entitled to IAC relief when he participated in the illegal conduct or acquiesced in that conduct.

Thus

…we hold that a defendant who participates in illegal conduct in collusion with his attorney or acquiesces in the attorney’s illegal or unethical conduct is not entitled IAC relief. We will not tolerate what amounts to a fraud on the court, and will not permit a defendant who participates or acquiesces in his attorney’s illegal or unethical conduct to reap any benefit of IAC relief. To hold otherwise would impermissibly permit a defendant to build an IAC claim into his case, thus guaranteeing him a basis for reversal of an adverse verdict.

 Some background on the attorney if you trust Wikipedia as a source. It reports that New York Magazine  called Bergrin “The Baddest Lawyer in the History of Jersey – And that’s saying something”.

 Indeed. (Mike Frisch)