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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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

II. COUNSELOR

2.1   Rule 2.1 Advisor

2.1:100   Comparative Analysis of New Jersey Rule

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.1
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary:
• NJ Commentary:

2.1:101      Model Rule Comparison

New Jersey adopted the ABA Model Rule 2.1 verbatim.

2.1:102      Model Code Comparison

There is no direct counterpart in the New Jersey RPCs.

2.1:200   Exercise of Independent Judgment

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.1
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:701, ALI-LGL § 151, Wolfram § 4.3
• NJ Commentary:

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.1:300   Non-Legal Factors in Giving Advice

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.1
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.1, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 31:701, ALI-LGL § 151, Wolfram § 4.3
• NJ Commentary:

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.2   Rule 2.2 Intermediary

2.2:100   Comparative Analysis of New Jersey Rule

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.2
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary:
• NJ Commentary:

2.2:101      Model Rule Comparison

RPC 2.2 is identical to Model Rule 2.2, with the exception of the introductory phrase, “[s]ubject to the provisions of RPC 1.7.” See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 2.2 (1989). The New Jersey Supreme Court added this language to clarify that the rules governing other conflicts of interest involving two or more current clients apply in the context of mediation See Rules of Professional Conduct, Comment to RPC 2.2, N.J.L.J., July 19, 1984, supp. at 24.

2.2:102      Model Code Comparison

There is no direct counterpart in the New Jersey RPCs.

2.2:200   Relationship of Intermediation to Joint Representation

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.2
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram §§ 8.7, 13.6
• NJ Commentary:

RPC 2.2 provides explicitly that a mediation between existing clients is a form of multiple representation.

2.2:300   Preconditions to Becoming an Intermediary

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.2
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram § 8.7, 13.6
• NJ Commentary:

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.2:400   Communication During Intermediation

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.2
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram § 8.7, 13.6
• NJ Commentary:

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.2:500   Consequences of a Failed Intermediation

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.2
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.2, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 51:1501, ALI-LGL § 153, Wolfram § 8.7, 13.6
• NJ Commentary: Section 21:2-3, Michels, New Jersey Attorney Ethics (Gann Law Books, Newark, 2000)

If a lawyer serves as an intermediary between existing clients, he or she cannot subsequently continue to represent either client in connection with the subject of the intermediation if the intermediation fails.

2.3   Rule 2.3 Evaluation for Use by Third Persons

2.3:100   Comparative Analysis of New Jersey Rule

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.3
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary:

2.3:101      Model Rule Comparison

New Jersey’s RPC 2.3 is based on the language of the earlier ABA Commission on Evaluation of Professional Standards, commonly known as the Kutak Commission, rather than the ABA Model Rule 2.3. RPC 2.3(a)(3) is an addition to the Model Rule, which provides that in preparing an evaluation for a third person, an attorney must describe to the client in writing the conditions of the evaluation, including any intention to disclose information otherwise protected under RPC 1.6. RPC 2.3 also includes another provision not included in the Model Rule and that is the requirement that the attorney indicate to the third party any material limitations imposed upon the scope of the inquiry or the disclosure of information.

2.3:102      Model Code Comparison

There is no direct counterpart in the New Jersey RPCs.

2.3:200   Undertaking an Evaluation for a Client

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.3
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 71:701, ALI-LGL § 152, Wolfram § 13.4
• NJ Commentary:

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.3:300   Duty to Third Persons Who Rely on Lawyer's Opinion [see also 1.1:420]

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.3
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 71:701, ALI-LGL § 152, Wolfram § 13.4.4
• NJ Commentary:

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.3:400   Confidentiality of an Evaluation

• Primary New Jersey References: NJ Rule 2.3
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.3, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary: ABA/BNA § 71:701, ALI-LGL § 152, Wolfram § 13.4.3
• NJ Commentary:

[The discussion of this topic has not yet been written.]

2.4   Rule 2.4 Lawyer Serving as a Third-Party Neutral

2.4:100   Comparative Analysis of New Jersey Rule

• Primary New Jersey References:
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary:

MR 2.4 was added in February 2002. The Reporter's explanation of the change reads as follows:

The role of third-party neutral is not unique to lawyers, but the Commission recognizes that lawyers are increasingly serving in these roles. Unlike nonlawyers who serve as neutrals, lawyers may experience unique ethical problems, for example, those arising from possible confusion about the nature of the lawyer's role. The Commission notes that there have been a number of attempts by various organizations to promulgate codes of ethics for neutrals (e.g., aspirational codes for arbitrators or mediators or court enacted rules governing court-sponsored mediators), but such codes do not typically address the special problems of lawyers. The Commission's proposed approach is designed to promote dispute resolution parties' understanding of the lawyer-neutral's role.

2.4:101      Model Rule Comparison

New Jersey has not adopted the new model rule.

2.4:200   Definition of "Third-Party Neutral"

• Primary New Jersey References:
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary:

New Jersey has not adopted the new model rule.

2.4:300   Duty to Inform Parties of Nature of Lawyer's Role

• Primary New Jersey References:
• Background References: ABA Model Rule 2.4, Other Jurisdictions
• Commentary:

New Jersey has not adopted the new model rule.