Is Conflicting Other Attorneys Out of A Case Unethical?
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?
After spending a decade at Family and Supreme Court watching NY divorce lawyers at work, I’m not the least bit surprised that some of their colleagues in New Jersey are out there advising clients to engage in conflict-creating “lawyer shopping.”
Divorce lawyers often tell wives to stop giving their estranged husbands visitation (to preclude a court deciding that they are able to cooperate or that the husband is an adequate caregiver; or as leverage for offering much less visitation time); they also frequently file petitions that knowingly distort the parenting worthiness of the opposing client (to preclude a court granting custody — joint or sole — or significant visitation to that parent) or that exaggerate “cruel treatment” (to have grounds for a divorce). These divorce lawyers are proud of their prowess and strategy. It is a small step for them to suggest a bit of lawyer shopping (especially if they do it indirectly, by merely informing the prospective client of the effect of such Shopping on the other spouse).
By the way click here to see the brief ACPE Opinion 703.
Maybe this strategy could work in Cape May, but where I live (Bergen County) has nearly a million residents and it seems like half of them are lawyers!!
I agree that such advice would be patently unethical and that the question should not even need to be asked. I also have no doubt that it happens, but I have not encounterd it in my practice in Ohio.
Do you have a link to the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics ruling?