Blatt, In re
| Decision Date | 23 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. D--16,D--16 |
| Citation | 201 A.2d 715,42 N.J. 522 |
| Parties | In the matter of Martin L. BLATT, an attorney at law. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Robert C. Koury, Atlantic City, for Atlantic County Ethics and Grievance Committee.
Robert H. Steedle, Atlantic City, for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered
A complaint was filed with the Atlantic County Ethics Committee against the respondent attorney, Martin L. Blatt. Following a formal hearing, the committee filed a presentment charging respondent with violation of Canons 6 and 37 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. This Court issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be disbarred or otherwise disciplined.
At the hearing before the Atlantic County Ethics Committee the following facts appeared:
The respondent was admitted to the bar of this State in 1959, and since that time has engaged in the practice of law with his father under the firm name of Blatt and Blatt.
On May 11, 1960 respondent signed and filed a complaint in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court, entitled 'Florence Marie Isard, plaintiff, v. Jack C. Isard, defendant,' in which plaintiff sought a divorce from defendant. A judgment Nisi entitled in the same cause was entered with a backer of Martin L. Blatt, Esq. No provision was made therein for the support of plaintiff or the children of the marriage.
Subsequently a notice of motion with supporting affidavit was filed entitled in the same cause by Morris Goldsmith, Esq., as attorney for plaintiff. The motion sought to amend the judgment Nisi by incorporating a direction for the weekly support of plaintiff and the children of the marriage. An order entitled in the same cause, dated February 13, 1962, was entered awarding support Pendente lite. The form of the order was consented to by 'Blatt & Blatt, attorneys for Defendant, By Alexander K. Blatt.' On March 26, 1962 the matter came on for hearing before Judge Francis at which time respondent participated in the trial as attorney for defendant. An order directing defendant to make support payments of $65 per week, dated March 27, 1962, was consented to by 'Martin L. Blatt, Attorney for Defendant.'
By a verified Petition and Order to Show Cause, again entitled in the original cause, dated October 15, 1962, plaintiff sought to hold defendant for contempt for failure to comply with the terms of the order of March 27, 1962. A counter-motion, together with supporting affidavit, seeking a reduction in the amount of support directed by the order of March 27, 1962 was filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haynes v. First Nat. State Bank of New Jersey
...of the attorney. In re Kushinsky, 53 N.J. 1, 5, 247 A.2d 665 (1968); In re Braun, 49 N.J. 16, 18, 227 A.2d 506 (1967); In re Blatt, 42 N.J. 522, 524, 201 A.2d 715 (1964); In re Kamp, 40 N.J. 588, 595, 194 A.2d 236 (1963). Even where the representation of two clients has become a routine pra......
-
Garber, Matter of
...re Jacob, 95 N.J. 132, 469 A.2d 498 (1984)). Further, respondent was not a victim of his own inexperience or naivete (In re Blatt, 42 N.J. 522, 524, 201 A.2d 175 (1964)). The likelihood of respondent engaging in similar activities in the future based on an evaluation of his character can al......
-
State v. Sanders
...398, 346 A.2d 393 (1975); In re Kushinsky, 53 N.J. 1, 247 A.2d 665 (1968); In re Braun, 49 N.J. 16, 227 A.2d 506 (1967); In re Blatt, 42 N.J. 522, 201 A.2d 715 (1964); In re Kamp, 40 N.J. 588, 194 A.2d 236 (1963). This well settled rule is now codified in R.P.C. 1.9 which (a) A lawyer who h......
-
Reardon v. Marlayne, Inc.
...398, 346 A.2d 393 (1975); In re Kushinsky, 53 N.J. 1, 247 A.2d 665 (1968); In re Braun, 49 N.J. 16, 227 A.2d 506 (1967); In re Blatt, 42 N.J. 522, 201 A.2d 715 (1964); In re Kamp, 40 N.J. 588, 194 A.2d 236 (1963). See also Perillo v. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 83 N.J. 393, 4......