In re Roth
New Jersey Supreme Court
577 A.2d 490 (1990)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Lee B. Roth (defendant), a licensed New Jersey lawyer who did not have a real estate broker's license, undertook to help his paralegal buy a house for less than its listed price. The paralegal agreed to pay Roth's legal fee, and to let Roth describe himself in the sale contract as the seller's broker, and therefore entitled to half of the listing broker's commission. Roth was to take his share of the commission and turn it over to the paralegal to reduce her costs. The listing broker, Carl D. Bayuk (plaintiff), initially agreed to share his commission with Roth, but after selling the house to another buyer for more money than Roth offered, Bayuk filed an ethics complaint against Roth. The state ethics committee concluded that Roth had violated state Disciplinary Rule DR 1-102(A)(6), which prohibited a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law. The disciplinary review board affirmed the committee. The board recommended to the New Jersey Supreme Court that Roth be publicly reprimanded.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.