The Price Of Pizza
A conflict of interest drew a reprimand from the New Jersey Supreme Court for conduct described in the report and recommendation the Disciplinary Review Board
Based on the foregoing facts, respondent stipulated that he violated RPC 1.7(a) by representing Mirrow in connection with his intent to sell 49% of his interest in the pizzeria property to Rafik, when that transaction was contingent on the successful sale of the pizzeria business in which respondent concurrently represented Rafik. Respondent conceded that he failed to secure from Mirrow and Rafik a written waiver acknowledging the conflict of interest and waiving their right to consult with independent counsel before engaging in the conflicted representation.
Respondent stipulated that he further violated RPC 1.7(a) by concurrently representing Mirrow, as the seller, and Rafik, as the buyer, in connection with the unsuccessful partial sale of the pizzeria property. Respondent conceded that Mirrow’s interest as the seller and Rafik’s interest as the buyer “were inherently adverse to each other.”
Moreover, respondent stipulated that he violated RPC 1.5(b) by failing to set forth, in writing, the basis of his legal fee in connection with his representation of Rafik in the sale of his pizzeria business to Choi.
Additionally, respondent stipulated that he violated RPC 1.15(a) by negligently misappropriating Rafik’s $31,000 in sale proceeds by improperly disbursing those funds to Mirrow. Respondent, however, emphasized that he mistakenly believed, based on Mirrow’s representations, that Mirrow was entitled to those funds. Similarly, respondent stipulated that he violated RPC 1.15(b) by failing to promptly provide Rafik with his $31,000 in proceeds from the sale of his pizzeria business.
Sanction
respondent engaged in a clear conflict of interest in connection with his concurrent representation of Rafik and Mirrow regarding the sales of the pizzeria business and the pizzeria property. Respondent’s conflicted representation created competing duties of loyalty regarding the allocation of Rafik’s sale proceeds, a portion of which respondent improperly disbursed as a collateral consequence of his decision to engage in the conflict. Consistent with disciplinary precedent for conflicts of interest and the improper disbursement of escrow funds, and considering respondent’s otherwise unblemished forty-year career at the bar, we determine that a reprimand is the appropriate quantum of discipline to protect the public and to preserve confidence in the bar.
(Mike Frisch)