Appell v. Reiner, A--22
| Decision Date | 19 October 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. A--22,A--22 |
| Citation | 204 A.2d 146,43 N.J. 313 |
| Parties | Frederick W. APPELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert J. REINER and Elsie Reiner, his wife, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Harold J. Brown, Bloomfield, for plaintiff-appellant (Joyce & Brown, Bloomfield, attorneys; Harold J. Brown, Bloomfield, of counsel).
Martin J. Kole, Hackensack, for defendants-respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Plaintiff, a New York lawyer, who has not been admitted to the New Jersey Bar, furnished legal services to defendants, New Jersey residents, in a matter involving the extension of credit and the compromise of claims held by New York and New Jersey creditors. In consideration for such services plaintiff was given two promissory notes secured by two mortgages. Plaintiff filed a complaint for foreclosure alleging default in payment. The Chancery Division granted defendants' motion for dismissal at the end of plaintiff's case and directed the cancellation of the promissory notes and the discharge of the lien of the mortgages. Appell v. Reiner, 81 N.J.Super. 229, 195 A.2d 310 (Ch.Div.1963).
The Chancery Division concluded that there could be no recovery for services rendered in connection with the negotiations with New Jersey creditors because they constituted the illegal practice of law in this State. It reasoned that since the New York and New Jersey transactions were admittedly so interwoven as to constitute an inseparable whole, the illegality of the New Jersey facet infected the entire contract and hence plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation. Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division. The appeal was certified to this court on its own motion, pursuant to R.R. 1:10--1.
We are in accord with the factual findings and generally in accord with the basic law concerning attorney and client as delineated in the Chancery Division opinion. However, we disagree with the final legal conclusion reached therein.
Plaintiff represented Robert Reiner in a contest in New York of the will of the latter's father. At a conference in plaintiff's New York office, Robert advised plaintiff that a proposed settlement of that litigation would be of little if any benefit to him because of the pressure for payment by creditors of Reintex, Inc., for whose debts he was liable. Reintex, Inc. is a corporation of New Jersey whose place of business is located in Rochelle Park. It is to all intents and purposes the Alter ego of Robert. He also stated that his wife Elsie was involved as an endorser of a promissory note of that corporation. Plaintiff testified that Robert and Elsie having requested him to advise and assist them in their financial dilemma, he agreed to act as their attorney. Thus, plaintiff undertook to attempt to solve the financial difficulties which involved Elsie and Robert Reiner, residents of New Jersey, and Reintex, Inc. The various individual and collective debts and obligations of defendants and Reintex, Inc. were so intertwined as to constitute an inseparable unit, or, to quote counsel, their financial problems coalesced into 'one ball of wax.' A substantial item was the debt owed to The Chemstrand Corporation, whose offices were located in New York City. This indebtedness constituted more than 50% Of the total obligations of the three. The balance of the creditors were located in New Jersey.
There is no doubt that plaintiff's activities in New York and New Jersey constituted the practice of law. It is admitted that the negotiations and legal services furnished in the Chemstrand matter could properly and legally have been accomplished by New York counsel. The question which we must decide, however, is whether New York counsel should have restricted his representation to that New York creditor.
The Chancery Division correctly delineated the generally controlling principle that legal services to the furnished to New Jersey residents relating to New Jersey matters may be furnished only by New Jersey counsel. We nevertheless recognize that there are unusual situations in which a strict adherence to such a thesis is not in the public interest. In this connection recognition must be given to the numerous multi-state transactions arising in modern times. This is particularly true of our State, situated as it is in the midst of the financial and manufacturing center of the nation. An inflexible observance of the generally controlling doctrine may well occasion a result detrimental to the public interest, and it follows that there may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Weitl v. Moes
-
State v. Rogers
...of law by drawing deeds, bonds, warrants, mortgages, releases of mortgages, affidavits and other legal instruments); Appell v. Reiner, 43 N.J. 313, 316, 204 A.2d 146 (1964) (plaintiff's activities of "rendering of advice and assistance in obtaining extensions of credit and compromises of in......
-
McAdam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
...73 A.2d 728 (App.Div.1950); Appell v. Reiner, 81 N.J.Super. 229, 242, 195 A.2d 310 (Ch.Div.1963), rev'd on other grounds, 43 N.J. 313, 204 A.2d 146 (1964). Given that the "substantially equal responsibility for the underlying illegality" standard is the one to be applied in this case, we do......
-
Rtc Mortg. Trust 1994 N-1 v. Fidelity Nat. Title
...of title search and explanation of its significance); In re Waring's Estate, 47 N.J. 367, 375-77, 221 A.2d 193 (1966); Appell v. Reiner, 43 N.J. 313, 204 A.2d 146 (1964) (finding that, absent exceptional circumstance, legal services to New Jersey residents with respect to New Jersey matters......
-
CHAPTER 12 PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINERAL TITLE EXAMINERS
...Law," 50 Wash. L. Rev. 699, 720-26 (1975); Note, "Attorneys: Interstate and Federal Practice," 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1711, 1717-21 (1967). [50] 43 N.J. 313, 204 A.2d 146 (1964). [51] 47 N.J. 367, 221 A.2d 193 (1966). [52] 221 A.2d at 197. [53] 364 F.2d 161 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 987 (......
-
CHAPTER 9 CROSSING THE BORDER: ISSUES IN THE MULTISTATE PRACTICE OF LAW
...50 Wash. L. Rev. 699, 720-726 (1975); Note, "Attorneys: Interstate and Federal Practice," 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1711, 1717-21 (1967). [28] 43 N.J. 313, 204 A.2d 146 (1964). [29] 47 N.J. 367, 221 A.2d 193, 197 (1966). [30] 211 N.E.2d 329, N.Y.S.2d 953, 956 (1965). See also Lamb v. Jones, 202 So.2......
-
The interstate practice of law: are you crossing the line?
...by an out-of-state co-counsel. Arguably, that rule might be limited to a representation with no evident interstate elements. (15.) 204 A.2d 146 (N.J. (16.) Appell was applied in In re Estate of Waring, 221 A.2d 193 (N.J. 1966), to permit compensation to a New York lawyer for doing the bulk ......
-
CHAPTER 14 ETHICS IN THREE SERVINGS: PRACTICING WITHOUT A LICENSE; ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEAL; AND LYING ABOUT IT ALL
...lawyer barred from collecting fee for legal services performed in New York for New York client on a New York divorce); Appell v. Reiner, 43 N.J. 313, 204 A.2d 146 (1964) (New York lawyer allowed to represent New Jersey residents for debt workouts where creditors located both in New York and......