Legal Opinion

Borteck v. RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided April 5, 2004PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

VERNIERO, J.

We are called on to review the retirement provisions of a law firm’s partnership agreement. The Appellate Division invalidated the provisions based on its view of Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 5.6 and existing case law. Given the rule’s current language, we disagree and reverse. Further, we direct the Professional Responsibility Rules Committee to consider whether RPC 5.6 requires any revision to provide clearer guidance to the bar concerning the elements necessary to establish a bona fide retirement plan under the rule.

I

Plaintiff…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & MarcusSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  2. Weiss v. Carpenter, Bennett & MorrisseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1996
  3. First Resolution Investment Corp. v. SekerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
  4. Katchen v. Wolff & SamsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1992
  5. Neuman v. AkmanDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Comparato v. SchaitSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
  2. In the Matter of Opinion No. 17-2012 of the Advisory Committee on Professional EthicsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2014
  3. CINDY JOHNSON, ETC. VS. FRANK MCCLELLAN, ESQ. VS. AARON J. FREIWALD, ESQ. (L-2366-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2021
  4. Comparato v. SchaitSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2004
  5. Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2010

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API