A censure has been imposed by the New Jersey Supreme Court based on a number of violations found by the Disciplinary Review Board.

respondent stipulated that he violated RPC 1.7(a)(1) and (2) by concurrently representing both Satec and Northern, whose interests in the apportionment of damages in the Superior Court litigation were directly adverse to one another, causing a significant risk that the representation of each would be materially limited by respondent’s responsibilities to the other. Making matters worse, prior to mediation before Judge Epstein, respondent failed to inform Northern or Satec of the conflict of interest, as RPC 1.7(b)(1) required. Rather, Northern and Satec only learned of the conflict at the outset of mediation, when Judge Epstein required the entities to obtain separate counsel. Following Judge Epstein’s directive, although respondent arranged for Parsells to represent Northern at mediation, respondent limited Parsells’s role at mediation by permitting him to step in only if the issue of a conflict arose.

Additionally, respondent violated RPC 8.1(a) and RPC 8.4(c) by falsely informing the OAE that he was unaware of why Judge Epstein had waived respondent’s remaining $15,501 in unpaid mediation fees in the Honeywell matter. However, as respondent ultimately stipulated, he knew that Judge Epstein had memorialized the basis for waiving those unpaid mediation fees in his July 24, 2009 letter to respondent

Sanction

Standing alone, respondent’s conflicted representation, lack of diligence and misrepresentations to Puzyk, and deception to the OAE would each warrant a reprimand. The totality of respondent’s misconduct, however, warrants a censure, given his repeated acts of deception towards Puzyk and the OAE; hisfailure to effectively remediate his conflicted  representation, despite Judge Epstein’s warning; and his inexplicable failure, for at least two years, to notify Satec of its status as a named plaintiff to the Superior Court litigation.