FOLLOW US

Conflict of Interest at New Jersey College Culminates in Disciplinary Actions

In a striking revelation, two partners at Dilworth Paxson LLP found themselves under the judicial microscope this week, as the New Jersey Supreme Court imposed sanctions over a glaring conflict of interest. The controversy stems from their dual role as investors and legal representatives in a restaurant project at The College of New Jersey.

Dilworth Paxson Attys Disciplined Over NJ Eatery Conflict: Ethical Missteps Lead to Sanctions

The spotlight turned to Michael Gluck and Christopher Walrath, former partners at GluckWalrath LLP—a firm that merged into Dilworth Paxson last year—who failed to properly disclose their conflicting roles. On Wednesday, separate Supreme Court orders resulted in Gluck receiving an admonition, while Walrath faced a sterner reprimand.

Their entanglement began in 2015 when they not only represented a group of investors but also invested in the same project, the Brickwall at Campus Town. However, the pair neglected to provide their clients with written notice of this potential conflict or obtain written consent for their involvement, actions required by state ethics rules.

Dilworth Paxson Attys Disciplined Over NJ Eatery Conflict: Verbal Notifications and Mitigating Factors Considered

Despite the serious nature of their actions, the attorneys maintained that they verbally informed their clients about the potential conflicts. The Supreme Court's Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) acknowledged this claim, along with other mitigating factors, such as their previously unblemished ethical records and a prior agreement with the DRB regarding the nature of the conflict.

"The Board determined that, despite the serious nature of the respondents' misconduct, the strong mitigating factors justify the imposition of a reprimand on Walrath and an admonition upon Gluck," stated the DRB in their recommendation to the Supreme Court.

Details of the Disciplinary Review

The DRB delved into the specifics of the case, noting that Gluck and Walrath introduced their existing clients to the restaurant’s property manager, only to become investors themselves later that year. The lack of formal disclosure led to the DRB's conclusion that they should have advised their clients to seek independent counsel, further compounding their ethical missteps.

Walrath's actions were particularly scrutinized when he improperly notarized documents for absent investment group members—a decision he made following explicit instructions via email. Though considered unethical, the DRB did not heavily weigh this against him as it was not intended to advance his personal interests.

Reactions and Ongoing Implications

Following the disciplinary actions, neither Gluck nor Walrath has commented on the matter. Additionally, the state Office of Attorney Ethics has opted to withhold comments on ongoing ethics cases. This case, involving significant ethical lapses by high-profile attorneys, underscores the intricate balance between personal interests and professional responsibilities within the legal profession.