New Jersey Legal Ethics
II. COUNSELOR
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.]
2.2:100 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 Jerseys 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.]
2.4:100 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.