99 N.J.L.J. 496
June 3, 1976
OPINION 334
Conflict of Interest
Representing Husband
Against Former Client Wife
The following inquiry has been made:
May an attorney represent a long-standing client of his firm
in a matrimonial action against his wife, A? Approximately five
years ago, the firm represented A in a divorce action against her
former husband. She then married her present husband whom the firm
desires to represent.
The present husband seeks a divorce and a property settlement.
A has had another attorney represent her during the past five
years. There have been no conferences whatever between A and the
inquirer since the time of her present marriage, and the inquirer
has no knowledge of any facts relating to the present marriage,
except as a result of his conferences with the present husband.
In our Opinion 6, 86 N.J.L.J. 718 (1963), and Opinion 86, 88
N.J.L.J. 773 (1965), we held that where an attorney had consulted
with one of the parties and had learned of facts relating in the
first opinion to a conditional sales agreement and in the second to
an existing marriage, he should not later appear on behalf of
either party. In Opinion 216, 94 N.J.L.J. 677 (1971), we reviewed
a number of our opinions where a conflict of interest might arise
in matrimonial litigation.
In Painter v. Painter, 65 N J. 196. 215 (1974), Justice
Mountain, speaking for the Supreme Court, in interpreting N.J.S.
2A:34-23, held that the court is authorized to distribute equitably
"the property, both real and personal, which was legally and
beneficially acquired by them [the spouses] or either of them
during the marriage. This would also include assets, title to
which is received by gift or inheritance, or indeed in any other
way. When the attorney represented the wife several years ago in
her prior matrimonial action, he might have received confidential
information from her as to assets which she might inherit or assets
which might have been set aside for her under a trust arrangement.
This confidential information might create a conflict and could be
used adversely against the wife in determining the equitable
distribution of the property owned by the parties. It is because
of this potential knowledge that the attorney should withdraw from
the case and should not represent either party.