Legal Opinion

In Re Kent

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided January 21, 1963PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Respondent, an attorney-at-law, is charged with violating Canon 9 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides in part:

“A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with Mm, but should deal only with Ms counsel.”

The complaint against respondent was brought by Mr. James P. Geoghegan, a member of the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Mr. Geoghegan claimed that respondent communicated and negotiated with one of Mr. Geoghegan’s clients to effectuate…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re DePamphilisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re NigohosianSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  2. Mussman's CaseSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1971
  3. Reilley v. KeswaniNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API