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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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 1.9
This rule has no DR counterpart; the situations covered by it have instead usually been dealt with through an interpretation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court adopts the recommendation of the Debevoise Committee but adds a new paragraph (b) stating that the provisions of RPC 1.7(c), added by the Court, are applicable as well to cases covered by RPC 1.9. Paragraph (a) differs from the ABA version in that the client's consent must be "after a full disclosure of the circumstances and consultation with the former client."