skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


New Jersey Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct

Comment - Rule 4.1

The Court has adopted the recommendation of the Debevoise Committee. As adopted, subparagraph (a)(2) states negatively the affirmative duty to disclose set forth in RPC 1.6. However, as provided in paragraph (b), this rule in certain situations can impose an even greater duty upon an attorney to disclose information than is required under RPC 1.6. Consequently, RPC 4.1(a)(2) would appear to extend the limits of RPC 1.6 in compelling disclosure. However, while RPC 1.6 imposes on the attorney an affirmative duty to disclose by seeking out the proper authorities, RPC 4.1 limits the duty to disclose to those situations in which the lawyer is being questioned by a third party. There is thus no actual inherent conflict, except that in a given situation RPC 4.1 can impose on an attorney an even greater duty to disclose than is required under RPC 1.6.