Legal Opinion

United States v. Lacerda

District Court, D. New Jersey

Decided March 7, 2013No. Crim. No. 12-303 (NLH)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HILLMAN, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is the Motion of the United States of America (hereinafter “United States” or “the Government”) to disqualify Defendant Adam Lacerda’s counsel of record, Marc Neff, Esq. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Mr. Neff faces, or is likely to face, significant conflicts of interest. The Court further finds that, based on the record before it, these conflicts cannot be waived or cured by remedial measures other than disqualification. Accordingly, the Court will grant the United States’ Motion, and will disqualify Mr. Neff…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  3. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Wheat v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. Herring v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1975

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHAHEED L. BROWN (18-11-0671 AND 19-04-0235, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API