Hold The Phone

The New Jersey Supreme Court reprimanded an attorney for unauthorized communications with a represented opposing party in a matter involving divorce and a restraining order.

From the letter decision of the Disciplinary Review Board

In connection with the divorce proceedings, the court ordered respondent and [opposing counsel] Grayson to arrange for an inventory of marital property held in W.R.’s storage facility. Accordingly, on February 7, 2022, respondent, Grayson, and W.R. met with an appraiser and, after several hours spent conducting the inventory, the group left the storage space. Respondent and W.R. entered the elevator first, and either before or after doing so, they conversed briefly about speaking, by telephone, at a later date. According to W.R., respondent proposed the telephone call, to which he agreed; according to respondent, it was W.R. who proposed the call, to which she agreed. Thereafter, respondent failed to obtain Grayson’s permission to discuss the divorce or restraining order matter with W.R.

On February 11, 2022, respondent called W.R. and spoke to him for approximately forty-five minutes. Respondent’s paralegal was present for the telephone call, which respondent conducted by speakerphone.

W.R. later stated that he and respondent spent about thirty minutes of the telephone call discussing issues related to the divorce and restraining order matters. In contrast, respondent stated that they spent most of the call discussing
topics unrelated to the legal matters. However, near the end of the call, W.R. asked whether the TRO could be dismissed in exchange for a concession in the divorce matter, and respondent admitted that she then discussed the pending matters with him.

Respondent was disqualified in both matters

Due to respondent’s disqualification as counsel in both matters, G.R. had to retain two new attorneys and incur additional expenses.

(Mike Frisch)