I am presently involved in a lawsuit in which my clients, three adult children of their now deceased father, are suing their deceased father’s former agent under a Power of Attorney. As alleged in the Verified Complaint filed by plaintiffs, the adult children claimed that the decedent either was incompetent when he signed the Power of Attorney or he was unduly influenced to sign the document by the agent. The children also claimed that the agent breached her fiduciary duty when she used the Power of Attorney to change the beneficiary designations on three annuities of substantial value owned by the decedent to either eliminate my clients as annuity beneficiaries, or reduce the childrens’ share of the annuity proceeds. Antonio Espinosa, Esq., the attorney who formerly represented the decedent, also represented the agent in the lawsuit filed by the adult children. Mr. Espinosa or personnel employed by his law firm prepared the Power of Attorney at issue and conducted the signing ceremony at which the decedent signed the document. We believed that a conflict of interest existed which barred Mr. Espinosa from presenting the agent in the present lawsuit. As a result, we filed a motion asking the Court to enter an Order disqualifying Mr. Espinosa from representing the agent. The motion was recently granted, and an Order was entered disqualifying Mr. Espinosa. A portion of the letter brief we submitted in support of the motion to disqualify follows:
As set forth herein, Antonio Espinosa, Esq. was the scrivener of the decedent’s purported Power of Attorney, the validity of which forms the basis of this lawsuit. As alleged in plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Mr. Espinosa drafted the document and a member of his law firm accompanied defendants to the decedent’s bedside for the execution of the document. As the individual who prepared the document and arranged for its execution, Mr. Espinosa has personal knowledge of relevant and material information that must be fleshed out through the discovery process, and will be central to the trial of this case.
R.P.C. 3.7 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness. ..
Mr. Espinosa is an essential witness in this case, and he will be deposed and called to testify at trial. Additionally, Mr. Espinosa’s file regarding his representation of Peter Graffia has already been subpoenaed. His ability to comply with discovery requests will be tempered by his duty to defendants. Therefore, a clear conflict exists.
Moreover, Mr. Espinosa purportedly acted as counsel for the decedent, at least with regard to the preparation of the power of attorney in issue in this case. He is now legal counsel for the Graffia defendants. Grace Graffia is being sued, among other things, for unduly influencing the decedent into executing the document at a time when he was infirm and in all likelihood incapacitated, and for breaching her fiduciary duties to the decedent. In other words, Mrs. Graffia is being sued for breach of her purported fiduciary duties to Mr. Espinosa’s client, with regard to her obligations under the document prepared by him.
R.P.C. 1.9 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A lawyer who has represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another client in the same or a substantially related matter in which that client’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client…
A matter is “substantially related” if the facts relevant to the prior representation are relevant and material to the subsequent representation. City of Atl. City v. Trupos, 201 N.J. 447, 992 A.2d 762 (2010). Here, Mr. Espinosa represented Peter Graffia. Mr. Espinosa owes a duty to Mr. Graffia to not represent Mrs. Graffia, who is alleged to have breached a duty to him. Having first represented the principal under the power of attorney, Mr. Espinosa simply cannot now represent the agent under that same document in claims relating to the agent’s breach of fiduciary duty.
For these reasons, plaintiffs’ cross-motion to disqualify Mr. Espinosa should be granted.
The Order disqualifying opposing counsel is annexed here – Disqualification Order
Categories
- Affordable Care Act
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Arbitration
- Attorney Ethics
- Attorneys Fees
- Beneficiary Designations
- Blog Roundup and Highlights
- Blogs and Blogging
- Care Facilities
- Caregivers
- Cemetery
- Collaborative Family Law
- Conservatorships
- Consumer Fraud
- Contempt
- Contracts
- Defamation
- Developmental Disabilities
- Discovery
- Discrimination Laws
- Doctrine of Probable Intent
- Domestic Violence
- Elder Abuse
- Elder Law
- Elective Share
- End-of-Life Decisions
- Estate Administration
- Estate Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Events
- Family Law
- Fiduciary
- Financial Exploitation of the Elderly
- Funeral
- Future of the Legal Profession
- Geriatric Care Managers
- Governmental or Public Benefit Programs
- Guardianship
- Health Issues
- Housing for the Elderly and Disabled
- In Remembrance
- Insolvent Estates
- Institutional Liens
- Insurance
- Interesting New Cases
- Intestacy
- Law Firm News
- Law Firm Videos
- Law Practice Management / Development
- Lawyers and Lawyering
- Legal Capacity or Competancy
- Legal Malpractice
- Legal Rights of the Disabled
- Liens
- Litigation
- Mediation
- Medicaid Appeals
- Medicaid Applications
- Medicaid Planning
- Annuities
- Care Contracts
- Divorce
- Estate Recovery
- Family Part Non-Dissolution Support Orders
- Gifts
- Life Estates
- Loan repayments
- MMMNA
- Promissory Notes
- Qualified Income Trusts
- Spousal Refusal
- Transfers For Reasons Other Than To Qualify For Medicaid
- Transfers to "Caregiver" Child(ren)
- Transfers to Disabled Adult Children
- Trusts
- Undue Hardship Provision
- Multiple-Party Deposit Account Act
- New Cases
- New Laws
- News Briefs
- Newsletters
- Non-Probate Assets
- Nursing Facility Litigation
- Personal Achievements and Awards
- Personal Injury Lawsuits
- Probate
- Punitive Damages
- Reconsideration
- Retirement Benefits
- Reverse Mortgages
- Section 8 Housing
- Settlement of Litigation
- Social Media
- Special Education
- Special Needs Planning
- Surrogate Decision-Making
- Taxation
- Technology
- Texting
- Top Ten
- Trials
- Trustees
- Uncategorized
- Veterans Benefits
- Web Sites and the Internet
- Webinar
- Writing Intended To Be A Will
Vanarelli & Li, LLC on Social Media