Lexplug logoLexplug

A v. B

Supreme Court of New Jersey
726 A.2d 924 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a joint representation, a lawyer has the discretion to disclose confidential information learned about one co-client to the other co-client if the lawyer's services were used to perpetrate a fraud and the information is material to the representation of the other co-client.


Facts:

  • A husband and wife retained the law firm Hill Wallack for joint estate planning.
  • They signed conflict waiver letters stating that information provided by one spouse could be available to the other.
  • The firm prepared reciprocal wills in which each spouse left their estate to the other, with their respective 'issue' as contingent beneficiaries.
  • Unbeknownst to his wife or Hill Wallack, the husband had recently fathered a child with another woman (the mother).
  • Coincidentally, the mother retained Hill Wallack to file a paternity action against the husband.
  • Due to a clerical error involving a misspelled name, the firm's standard conflict-of-interest check failed to detect the concurrent representation.
  • After the paternity action was filed, the husband and wife executed their wills at Hill Wallack's office.
  • Hill Wallack later discovered the conflict and sought to inform the wife about the existence of the husband's child, as it could affect her estate plan.

Procedural Posture:

  • The mother, A., filed a paternity action against the husband, B., in the Family Part.
  • The husband, B., filed a third-party complaint against his law firm, Hill Wallack, seeking to prevent it from disclosing information to his wife.
  • The husband requested an order from the Family Part (the court of first instance) to restrain Hill Wallack from making the disclosure.
  • The Family Part denied the husband's request for restraints.
  • The husband, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
  • The Appellate Division reversed the Family Part and remanded for an order imposing preliminary restraints against Hill Wallack.
  • Hill Wallack, as third-party defendant-appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a law firm that jointly represents a husband and wife for estate planning have the discretion to disclose to the wife the existence of the husband's illegitimate child, a fact he concealed and which is material to her estate plan?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Pollock

Yes. A law firm has the discretion to disclose such information because the non-disclosure constitutes a fraud on the other co-client. The court reasoned that this situation creates a conflict between two fundamental duties: the duty of confidentiality under RPC 1.6(a) and the duty to keep a client informed under RPC 1.4(b). The court found that the husband's deliberate omission of his illegitimate child constituted a 'fraudulent act' under RPC 1.6(c), which permits a lawyer to reveal confidential information to rectify the consequences of a client's fraudulent act in which the lawyer's services were used. The court construed 'fraud' broadly, noting that the husband used the firm's services to defraud his wife in her estate planning, as her property could ultimately pass to this unknown child. Further, New Jersey's RPC 1.6 is more expansive than the ABA Model Rules, favoring disclosure to prevent or rectify fraud. Citing the Restatement (Third) of The Law Governing Lawyers, the court endorsed a discretionary standard, allowing a lawyer to disclose when the risk to the affected co-client outweighs the communicating client's interest in secrecy.



Analysis:

This decision provides critical guidance on the ethical tightrope lawyers walk in joint representations, particularly between spouses. It establishes that the duty of confidentiality is not absolute and can be pierced when one co-client perpetrates a fraud on the other using the lawyer's services. The ruling empowers attorneys with discretion to protect a deceived client, aligning with New Jersey's robust ethical rules on disclosure (RPC 1.6(c)). This precedent strongly encourages lawyers to establish explicit information-sharing agreements at the outset of any joint representation to clarify client expectations and mitigate future conflicts.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query A v. B (1999) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for A v. B