Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractattorneymotionalimony
attorneywill

Related Cases

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 64 USLW 2401, 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1061
View Case »
Ryan v. Butera, Beausang, Cohen & Brennan, 193 F.3d 210
View Case »
Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Ajamie, 538 F.Supp.2d 605
View Case »
Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 105 F.Supp.3d 1100
View Case »
Skarbrevik v. Cohen, England & Whitfield, 231 Cal.App.3d 692, 282 Cal.Rptr. 627
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Santacroce v. Neff, 134 F.Supp.2d 366

Facts

Stefania Santacroce and Arthur Goldberg were romantically involved, and Goldberg requested that she leave her business and apartment to care for him. Jaffe & Asher was retained to represent Santacroce in a breach of contract action against a jewelry manufacturer, with Goldberg covering her legal fees. After Goldberg's death, Santacroce sought to file a palimony suit against his estate, prompting Jaffe & Asher to withdraw from representing her due to a conflict of interest, as they were then approached to represent the estate.

Goldberg's Last Will and Testament did not leave anything to Santacroce.

Issue

Whether Jaffe & Asher could represent the estate of Arthur Goldberg after having previously represented Santacroce in a related matter, given the potential conflict of interest.

The 'Hot Potato Doctrine' has evolved to prevent attorneys from dropping one client like a 'hot potato' to avoid a conflict with another, more remunerative client.

Rule

RPC 1.7(a) prohibits an attorney from representing a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client unless both clients consent after full disclosure. RPC 1.9(a)(1) prohibits an attorney from representing a new client in a matter that is substantially related to a matter in which the attorney previously represented another client, unless the former client consents.

RPC 1.7(a) governs a potential conflict of interest when an attorney concurrently represents clients with adverse interests.

Analysis

The court found that Jaffe & Asher's representation of both Santacroce and the estate created a direct conflict of interest, as their interests were materially adverse. The firm had previously represented Santacroce in a matter that was substantially related to her claims against the estate. The court emphasized that the timing of the firm's withdrawal from representing Santacroce was a clear attempt to avoid the conflict and represent the more lucrative client, the estate.

When Jaffe & Asher found out that the firm's two clients, Santacroce and the Estate, were at odds, it dropped Santacroce like a 'hot potato.'

Conclusion

The court concluded that Jaffe & Asher was disqualified from representing the estate due to the conflict of interest arising from their prior representation of Santacroce.

The Court concludes that RPC 1.7(a) precludes Jaffe & Asher from representing the Estate in this matter.

Who won?

Stefania Santacroce prevailed in her motion to disqualify Jaffe & Asher from representing the estate, as the court found that the firm had a conflict of interest that violated professional conduct rules.

Accordingly, RPC 1.7(a) and 1.9(a)(1) of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct preclude the firm of Jaffe & Asher from representing Arthur Goldberg's Estate in this case.

You must be