From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Farmer

DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Mar 27, 2012
Docket No. DRB 11-438 (N.J. Mar. 27, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. DRB 11-438

03-27-2012

RE: In the Matter of George Louis Farmer

JULIANNE K. DECORE CHIEF COUNSEL ISABEL FRANK DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL ELLEN A. BRODSKY FIRST ASSISTANT COUNSEL LILLIAN LEWIN DONA S. SEROTA -TESCHNER COLIN T. TAMS KATHRYN ANNE WINTERLE ASSISTANT COUNSEL


LOUIS PASHMAN, ESQ. CHAIR
BONNIE C. FROST, ESQ. VICE-CHAIR
EDNA Y. BAUGH, ESQ.
BRUCE W. CLARK, ESQ.
JEANNE DOREMUS
HON. MAURICE J. GALLIPOLI
SPENCER V. WISSINGER, III
MORRIS YAMNER, ESQ.
ROBERT C. ZMIRICH JULIANNE K. DECORE
CHIEF COUNSEL ISABEL FRANK
DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL ELLEN A. BRODSKY
FIRST ASSISTANT COUNSEL LILLIAN LEWIN
DONA S. SEROTA -TESCHNER
COLIN T. TAMS
KATHRYN ANNE WINTERLE
ASSISTANT COUNSEL

RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX

CERTIFIED MAIL , R.R.R. & REGULAR MAIL George Louis Farmer, Esq.
[Redacted] District Docket Nos. I-2011-0900E and XIV-2007-0268E
LETTER OF ADMONITION Dear Mr. Farmer:

The Disciplinary Review Board has reviewed your conduct in the above matter and has concluded that it was improper. Following a review of the record, the Board determined to impose an admonition.

Specifically, in 1999, Hossein Tirgan, M.D., retained you to represent him in civil litigation. During the course of that matter, you retained Dr. Tirgan's services as an expert witness in a separate matter. Over time, you retained him as an expert in other matters.

In 2004, Dr. Tirgan sued you for payment of his consulting and expert fees. You counterclaimed for your legal fees. During the course of the litigation, you came to believe that your clients, for whom Dr. Tirgan had provided services, had to be brought in to the litigation as "necessary parties." In January 2005, with your clients' consent, you filed a third-party complaint naming your clients as third-party defendants and filed an answer and counterclaim on behalf of those clients. You did not assert any claims against your clients, but merely used this procedure as a means to get them into the case. The court dismissed the third-party complaint on April 15, 2005. Three days later, you wrote to your clients advising them that the court had questioned whether they should be parties to the litigation and had concerns about your representing their interests, while you were a party in the case. You then asked the clients to authorize you to dispute Dr. Tirgan's fees. In your letter to the clients, you did not disclose the Court's dismissal of the third-party complaint because you were unaware of it.

You brought your clients (albeit with their consent) into a lawsuit as third party defendants when you were already a party to the case. Seemingly, it never occurred to you that your interests could have become adverse to your clients or that their interests could have become adverse to each other. You had no way to predict what the court would do in the civil suit. Nevertheless, your conduct was unethical and a violation of RPC 1.7(a).

The Board dismissed the remaining charges for lack of clear and convincing evidence.

In imposing only an admonition, the Board determined that there was no ill intent by you and no harm to your clients. In addition, you have a previously unblemished record of over fifteen years at the bar.

Your conduct adversely reflected not only upon you as an attorney but also upon all members of the bar. Accordingly, the Board has directed the issuance of this admonition to you. Rule 1:20-15(f)(4).

A permanent record of this occurrence has been filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Board's office. Should you become the subject of any further discipline, it will be taken into consideration.

The Board has also directed that the cost of the disciplinary proceedings be assessed against you. An invoice of costs will be forwarded under separate cover.

Very truly yours,

/s/

Julianne K. DeCore

Chief Counsel JKD/paa
c: Stuart Rabner, Chief Justice

Associate Justices

Mark Neary, Clerk, Supreme Court of New Jersey

Louis Pashman, Chair, Disciplinary Review Board

Charles Centinaro, Director, Office of Attorney Ethics

Carmen R. Faia, Chair, District I Ethics Committee

Frederic L. Shenkman, Secretary, District I Ethics Committee

Tirgan M. Hossein, Grievant


Summaries of

In re Farmer

DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Mar 27, 2012
Docket No. DRB 11-438 (N.J. Mar. 27, 2012)
Case details for

In re Farmer

Case Details

Full title:RE: In the Matter of George Louis Farmer

Court:DISCIPLINARY REVIEW BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Date published: Mar 27, 2012

Citations

Docket No. DRB 11-438 (N.J. Mar. 27, 2012)

Citing Cases

In re Farmer

In 2012, he received an admonition for engaging in a conflict of interest. In the Matter of George Louis…