J.G. Ries & Sons, Inc. v. Spectraserv, Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court
894 A.2d 681 (2006)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Spectraserv, Inc., operated on property owned by Modern Transportation Company (Modern) (defendants) near property owned by J.G. Ries & Sons, Inc. (Ries) (plaintiff). Both Spectraserv and Ries were members of trade association Lincoln North Development Corporation (Lincoln). Pearce Fleisig, LLC (Pearce) sued Spectraserv and Modern on behalf of Ries, seeking damages for Spectraserv’s noxious fumes. Pearce subsequently challenged a trucking-related zoning-ordinance amendment on Lincoln’s behalf. Spectraserv moved to disqualify Pearce from representing Ries, claiming Spectraserv was a vicarious Pearce client based on its Lincoln membership and a direct client because it had provided business information to a Lincoln representative in connection with an earlier zoning challenge. Spectraserv had not requested nor had Lincoln agreed the information would remain confidential, and much of the information was publicly available. The court disqualified Pearce under Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.7(a), concerning conflicts of interest, and found RPC 1.13, permitting a lawyer for an organization to also represent any member provided the lawyer follows the conflict-of-interest rules, inapplicable. Ries appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wefing, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.