Kent, In re

• Decision Date: 21 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. D--5,D--5
• Citation: 39 N.J. 114,187 A.2d 718
• Parties: , 1 A.L.R.3d 1109 In the Matter of Edward KENT, An Attorney-at-Law, Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 114

39 N.J. 114

187 A.2d 718, 1 A.L.R.3d 1109

In the Matter of Edward KENT, An Attorney-at-Law, Respondent.

No. D--5.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Dec. 4, 1962.

Decided Jan. 21, 1963.

J. Gilbert Van Sciver, Jr., Chairman, Burlington County Ethics Committee, for the order.

Martin L. Haines, Mount Holly, for respondent (Dimon, Haines & Bunting, Mount Holly, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

Respondent, an attorney-at-law, is charged with violating Canon 9 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides in part:

'A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel.'

The complaint against respondent was brought by Mr. James P. Geoghegan, a member of the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mr. Geoghegan claimed that respondent communicated and negotiated with one of Mr. Geoghegan's clients to effectuate a satisfaction of a judgment rendered in favor of said client, Harvey P. Moyer, and against a judgment debtor, Paul Colton, then represented by respondent, and that at that time respondent had knowledge of Mr. Geoghegan's personal interest, as well as his interest as an attorney representing both Mr. Moyer and Mr. Moyer's insurance carrier in that matter.

The judgment for which satisfaction was sought arose out of a collision between automobiles owned by Colton and Moyer, an assured of Calvert Fire Insurance Co., another client of Mr. Geoghegan. Calvert settled Moyer's claim against it for $1,000 and obtained a subrogation for that amount from Moyer against Colton. Mr. Geoghegan thereafter represented the insurance carrier for the $1,000 and the assured for the excess damages. In the trial of that matter in Pennsylvania, Colton, then a Pennsylvania resident, was represented by a Pennsylvania counsel. Mr. Geoghegan obtained a judgment against Colton of $1,569.50 which was not paid.

Following the entry of the judgment, Colton took up residence in Levittown, New Jersey. Colton was anxious to have the judgment satisfied of record so that his New Jersey driving privilege might be restored, it having been revoked under the Pennsylvania-New Jersey reciprocity arrangement because of the said judgment. Shortly before the conduct complained of, some efforts were made by Mr. Geoghegan and Colton's Pennsylvania counsel to arrive at an amicable arrangement for payment of the judgment. As these efforts by the attorneys proved unsuccessful, Colton, for several months, endeavored to talk directly to Mr. Geoghegan regarding the matter, but Mr. Geoghegan refused to discuss the matter with him--assertedly on the grounds that Colton was then represented by counsel. Colton claimed that as Mr. Geoghegan failed to cooperate, he called the insurance company directly and was advised that payments of $40.00 per month would be acceptable to it. When Mr. Geoghegan learned of this, he told Colton that payments of less than $50.00 per month would not be acceptable and required the delivery of a promissory note signed by Colton and his wife.

Thereafter, on or about October 1, 1961, Colton consulted respondent at Levittown, New Jersey. On October 2, 1961 Colton telephoned Moyer from respondent's office and an appointment was made to discuss the matter with him at Moyer's home in Pennsylvania that evening. When respondent and Colton arrived at Moyer's home, they were told by Moyer that he had discharged Mr. Geoghegan as his attorney. Respondant thereupon prepared a form of release and had Moyer execute it in exchange for $50.00 cash and a series of 15 postdated checks. Respondent lent Colton the $50.00 with which to pay Moyer.

The release was forwarded to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the next day to obtain a restoration of...