New Jersey law blog has this post about a New Jersey ethics decision on "lawyer shopping." As the post describes, lawyer shopping is a practice whereby a client (most frequently, a divorce client) will visit and interview several prospective attorneys for the exclusive purpose of potentially conflicting them from representing the spouse in litigation. The New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics recently ruled that an attorney who advises his/her client to contact other lawyers for the purpose of denying their spouse from obtaining representation by counsel of his or her choice constitutes conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
When I first read about this decision, I wondered whether an advisory decision was really necessary? After all, to my mind, it seems inherently unethical for a lawyer to counsel a client to go out and interview other attorneys given that the client already had representation. In essence, this kind of directive would require the client to lie – and that kind of advice couldn’t possibly be ethical.
I still feel that way, but there must be another side to the story – or why would you need an ethics decision? So readers, I ask – have you ever advised a client to visit other attorneys to conflict them from representing the opposition? And what’s your take – is this ethical?
Related posts:
- A Client’s Role in Case Strategy
- NJ’s Bonafide Office Rule Would Have Me Doubled Over With Laughter Except That It Will Double the Cost of Legal Services
- A $2 Million Reason to Keep Control in the Courtroom
- Client Endorsements Banned from NJ Lawyer Websites
- Failing To Make Opinion Available on Outsourcing Is Just So ABA
