A lawsuit will be filed with the New Jersey Executive Branch Board of Ethics against David Samson on March 3, 2014. Will the New Jersey Bar Association become involved? The Rules of Professional Conduct in New Jersey, RPC 8.3. involves the duty of every attorney to report Professional Misconduct.
“(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority..”
The New Jersey Supreme Court has repealed the standard ethical rule applying in other states, which would allow sanctioning of a lawyer for doing any act which gives the “appearance of impropriety.”
By Jenna Portnoy/The Star-Ledger
TRENTON — As chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, David Samson voted to award millions of dollars in Port Authority contracts to a company whose owner is represented by Samson’s law firm in a hotly contested and lucrative legal fight.
In the three years since Samson took over at the bistate agency, the Paterson-based Railroad Construction Company Inc. has received nearly $16 million in work on projects ranging from the World Trade Center to the Hackensack River Bridge, according to a Star-Ledger review of meeting minutes and contracts listed on the Port Authority’s website. The most recent contract was awarded last month, according to the website.
At the same time, two attorneys from Wolff & Samson are defending a part-owner of the company, Alfonso Daloisio, in a civil case set for trial in September.
The review provides the clearest demonstration yet of how Samson’s role as chairman of the massive economic engine that is the Port Authority and his role as head of one of the state’s most powerful law firms placed him in potential conflicts of interest.
It also shows a pattern in which Samson, a former state attorney general, represents clients on one hand and on the other votes in his role as chairman of the Port Authority on matters that benefit them.
Samson, one of the most prominent figures in New Jersey’s legal world and a longtime adviser to Gov. Chris Christie, has faced scrutiny since emails emerged linking him to the aftermath of the Port Authority closure of lanes to the George Washington Bridge.
Though Port Authority chairmen draw no salary, the position is one of the most coveted in the region as they can influence how the agency spends money on projects. The review shows Wolff & Samson’s legal business has done well: Since he became chairman of the Port Authority, his firm has made at least $8.4 million from its contract work with the state and authorities, and its lobbying work grew to more than $1 million a year, according to latest records.
“The appearance of a conflict of interest is clearly there and whether he or the other commissioners wanted to make the argument that we’ve made this analysis objectively without regard for fact that the chairman or his firm was involved, it doesn’t pass the test of sensible,” Jameson Doig, a Dartmouth professor and author of “Empire on the Hudson,” a history of the Port Authority, said about the railroad company contracts.
Karen Kessler of Evergreen Partners, a public relations firm that represents Samson, stressed that Wolff & Samson is working for the owner of the Railroad Construction Company Inc. and not the company itself. “David Samson does not represent Railroad Construction Company, the company is a client of Kranjac Tripodi law firm,” she said in a statement.
The Port Authority did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Some of the biggest contracts awarded to Railroad Construction Company Inc. were for work on the agency’s most high-profile project. On April 29, 2012, Samson voted with the majority to hire the company for “work associated with the construction of One World Trade Center,” a contract worth $7.56 million.
Also, minutes from the June 26, 2013, meeting show Samson voted to retain Railroad Construction Company Inc. and nine other companies to be ready to work “on an as-needed basis throughout the World Trade Center site” for five years. The payments are expected to range from $25,000 to $5 million each time the company is called upon to work, with the entire payout for all the projects costing up to $50 million.
In the meantime, the Daloisio brothers have waged war in court in Burlington County over their half interest in each other’s railroad companies — one in North Jersey, one in South Jersey. The case has kept lawyers on both sides busy since 2010 with reams of documents and accusations.
Alfonso Daloisio Jr., who runs Railroad Construction Company Inc., said through his company’s attorney that he has never met or spoken to Samson.
“Railroad Construction Company Inc. has been providing services to the Port Authority for over 30 years, and the contracts that Railroad Construction Company Inc. has received from the Port Authority have all been in accordance with the Port Authority’s strict rules and regulations,” according to a statement from attorney Joseph Tripodi, who works for Kranjac Triodi & Partners, and previously worked for Wolff & Samson.
The other brother, Jim Daloisio, runs a sister company based in Paulsboro. He called the ongoing legal battle “incredibly frustrating and expensive.”
“We at Railroad Construction Company of South Jersey Inc. have always conducted our business above board and within the law,” Jim Daloisio said in an interview. “I am extremely troubled to learn that the company which I own 50 percent of and which is run by my brother may have improperly benefited from conflicts of interest.”
Records show Railroad Construction Company Inc. has also done a variety of work for the Port Authority under Samson’s watch with contracts awarded by the authority’s administration without votes. As of Aug. 1, according to a list of contracts on the Port Authority website, the company had a contract worth nearly $3.9 million to do deck and rail work on the Hackensack River Bridge.
A contract for track repairs at Greenville Yard associated with the NY & NJRR Cross Harbor Freight Project was increased by $4 million, according to the agency. And a contract for immediate repairs at Newark Liberty International Airport and Teterboro Airport was increased by $375,000.
In 2012 the Port Authority hired the company to do $50,000 in work at the World Trade Center site. In addition, a company spun off from Railroad Construction Company Inc., called RCC Builders & Developers Inc., was hired on March 29, 2012, to work on improvements to Terminal B International Arrivals at Newark airport. Most recently, on Jan. 16, the company was granted an extension on a $92,000 contract for emergency repairs.
Samson’s overlapping interests have cropped up in other contracts held by his law firm.
Samson’s firm represented a developer, the Rockefeller Group, that wanted to build in Hoboken — the city Mayor Dawn Zimmer says was denied Hurricane Sandy relief aid because she wouldn’t support the real estate deal.
Wolff & Samson was named bond counsel to the South Jersey Transportation Authority, the agency that runs the Atlantic City airport, which the Port Authority began running last year, WNYC reported.
Samson also voted for a $256 million reconstruction of the Harrison PATH station after a builder represented by Wolff & Samson proposed converting a nearby warehouse into luxury apartments, The Record reported.
Patrick Murray, a pollster at Monmouth University, said because unpaid commissioners are appointed, they escape the scrutiny brought to bear on elected officials, even though they control a huge budget.
“This is a way to get your business and associates a leg up on big contracts,” Murray said. “Do a favor for somebody and they’ll do a favor for you down the line.”
Murray said for someone to get to the point where they are appointed to the Port Authority, it’s a given they would have high-level contacts and clout.
“They tend to be people who are very entrenched in the business world and the political world,” Murray said. “You put them in the Port Authority and it is a recipe for conflict of interest.”
Rules of Professional Conduct of the New Jersey Bar Association
https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/apprpc.htm
September 10, 2003 The New Jersey Supreme Court repealed the “appearance of impropriety rule”.
RPC 1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: GENERAL RULE
(a) A Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client unless involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) each client consents after a full disclosure of the circumstances and consultation with the client, except that a public entity cannot consent to any such representation. there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests, unless: Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
RPC 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct
• (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.
• (b) A lawyer who knows that a judge has committed a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct that raises a substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office shall inform the appropriate authority.
• (c) This Rule does not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6.
• (d) Paragraph (a) of this Rule shall not apply to knowledge obtained as a result of participation in a Lawyers Assistance Program established by the Supreme Court and administered by the New Jersey State Bar Association, except as follows:
• (i) if the effect of discovered ethics infractions on the practice of an impaired attorney is irremediable or poses a substantial and imminent threat to the interests of clients, then attorney volunteers, peer counselors, or program staff have a duty to disclose the infractions to the disciplinary authorities, and attorney volunteers have the obligation to apply immediately for the appointment of a conservator, who also has the obligation to report ethics infractions to disciplinary authorities; and
• (ii) attorney volunteers or peer counselors assisting the impaired attorney in conjunction with his or her practice have the same responsibility as any other lawyer to deal candidly with clients, but that responsibility does not include the duty to disclose voluntarily, without inquiry by the client, information of past violations or present violations that did not or do not pose a serious danger to clients.
Note: Adopted July 12, 1984, to be effective September 10, 1984; new paragraph (d) adopted October 5, 1993, to be effective immediately; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004.
RPC 8.4. Misconduct
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
• (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
• (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
• (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
• (d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
• (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
• (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or other law;
• (g) engage, in a professional capacity, in conduct involving discrimination (except employment discrimination unless resulting in a final agency or judicial determination) because of race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, language, marital status, socioeconomic status, or handicap where the conduct is intended or likely to cause harm.
Note: Adopted July 12, 1984, to be effective September 10, 1984; paragraph (g) adopted July 18, 1990, to be
RPC 1.7. Conflict of Interest: General Rule
• (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
o (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
o (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
• (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
o (1) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, after full disclosure and consultation, provided, however, that a public entity cannot consent to any such representation. When the lawyer represents multiple clients in a single matter, the consultation shall include an explanation of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved;
o (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
o (3) the representation is not prohibited by law; and
o (4) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.
Note: Adopted July 12, 1984 to be effective September 10, 1984; text deleted and new text adopted November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004.
RPC 1.8. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients; Specific Rules
• (a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:
o (1) the transaction and terms in which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that can be understood by the client;
o (2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel of the client’s choice concerning the transaction; and
o (3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.
• (b) Except as permitted or required by these rules, a lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client after full disclosure and consultation, gives informed consent.
• (c) A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this paragraph, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or individual with whom the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship.
• (d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation.
• (e) A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that:
o (1) a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and
o (2) a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the client; and
o (3) a non-profit organization authorized under R. 1:21-1(e) may provide financial assistance to indigent clients whom it is representing without fee.
• (f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:
o (1) the client gives informed consent;
o (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the lawyer-client relationship; and
o (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by RPC 1.6.
• (g) A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or no contest pleas, unless each client gives informed consent after a consultation that shall include disclosure of the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and of the participation of each person in the settlement.
• (h) A lawyer shall not:
o (1) make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer’s liability to a client for malpractice unless the client fails to act in accordance with the lawyer’s advice and the lawyer nevertheless continues to represent the client at the client’s request. Notwithstanding the existence of those two conditions, the lawyer shall not make such an agreement unless permitted by law and the client is independently represented in making the agreement; or
o (2) settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advise of independent legal counsel in connection therewith.
• (i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the lawyer may: (1) acquire a lien granted by law to secure the lawyer’s fee or expenses, (2) contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case.
• (j) While lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the foregoing paragraphs (a) through (i) that applies to any one of them shall apply to all of them.
• (k) A lawyer employed by a public entity, either as a lawyer or in some other role, shall not undertake the representation of another client if the representation presents a substantial risk that the lawyer’s responsibilities to the public entity would limit the lawyer’s ability to provide independent advice or diligent and competent representation to either the public entity or the client.
• (l) A public entity cannot consent to a representation otherwise prohibited by this Rule.
Note: Adopted September 10, 1984 to be effective immediately; paragraph (e) amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; caption amended, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) amended, former paragraph (i) deleted, former paragraph (j) redesignated as paragraph (i), former paragraph (k) deleted, and new paragraphs (j) , (k) and (l) added November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004.
RPC 1.10. Imputation of Conflicts of Interest: General Rule
• (a) When lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by RPC 1.7 or RPC 1.9, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest of the prohibited lawyer and does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of the client by the remaining lawyers in the firm.
• (b) When a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is not prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm, unless:
o (1) the matter is the same or substantially related to that in which the formerly associated lawyer represented the client; and
o (2) any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by RPC 1.6 and RPC 1.9(c) that is material to the matter.
• (c) When a lawyer becomes associated with a firm, no lawyer associated in the firm shall knowingly represent a person in a matter in which that lawyer is disqualified under RPC 1.9 unless:
o (1) the matter does not involve a proceeding in which the personally disqualified lawyer had primary responsibility;
o (2) the personally disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
o (3) written notice is promptly given to any affected former client to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this Rule.
• (d) A disqualification prescribed by this rule may be waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in RPC 1.7.
• (e) The disqualification of lawyers associated in a firm with former or current government lawyers is governed by RPC 1.11.
• (f) Any law firm that enters a screening arrangement, as provided by this Rule,shall establish appropriate written procedures to insure that: (1) all attorneys and other personnel in the law firm screen the personally disqualified attorney from any participation in the matter, (2) the screened attorney acknowledges the obligation to remain screened and takes action to insure the same, and (3) the screened attorney is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.
Note: Adopted July 12, 1984 to be effective September 10, 1984; paragraph (b) corrected in Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 109 N.J. 201, 217-18 (1988); caption and paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) amended, paragraph (d) deleted, former paragraph (e) amended and redesignated as paragraph (d), new paragraphs (e) and (f) adopted November 17, 2003
RPC 1.13. Organization as the Client
• (a) A lawyer employed or retained to represent an organization represents the organization as distinct from its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents. For the purposes of RPC 4.2 and 4.3, however, the organization’s lawyer shall be deemed to represent not only the organizational entity but also the members of its litigation control group. Members of the litigation control group shall be deemed to include current agents and employees responsible for, or significantly involved in, the determination of the organization’s legal position in the matter whether or not in litigation, provided, however, that “significant involvement” requires involvement greater, and other than, the supplying of factual information or data respecting the matter. Former agents and employees who were members of the litigation control group shall presumptively be deemed to be represented in the matter by the organization’s lawyer but may at any time disavow said representation.
• (b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law which reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. In determining how to proceed, the lawyer shall give due consideration to the seriousness of the violation and its consequences, the scope and nature of the lawyer’s representation, the responsibility in the organization and the apparent motivation of the person involved, the policies of the organization concerning such matters and any other relevant considerations. Any measures taken shall be designed to minimize disruption of the organization and the risk of revealing information relating to the representation to persons outside the organization. Such measures may include among others:
o (1) asking reconsideration of the matter;
o (2) advising that a separate legal opinion on the matter be sought for presentation to appropriate authority in the organization; and
o (3) referring the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, referral to the highest authority that can act in behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law.
• (c) When the organization’s highest authority insists upon action, or refuses to take action, that is clearly a violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a violation of law which reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer may take further remedial action that the lawyer reasonably believes to be in the best interest of the organization. Such action may include revealing information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6 only if the lawyer reasonably believes that:
o (1) the highest authority in the organization has acted to further the personal or financial interests of members of that authority which are in conflict with the interests of the organization; and
o (2) revealing the information is necessary in the best interest of the organization.
• (d) In dealing with an organization’s directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, a lawyer shall explain the identity of the client when the lawyer believes that such explanation is necessary to avoid misunderstanding on their part.
• (e) A lawyer representing an organization may also represent any of its directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, subject to the provisions of RPC 1.7. If the organization’s consent to the dual representation is required by RPC 1.7, the consent shall be given by an appropriate official of the organization other than the individual who is to be represented or by the shareholders.
• (f) For purposes of this rule “organization” includes any corporation, partnership, association, joint stock company, union, trust, pension fund, unincorporated association, proprietorship or other business entity, state or local government or political subdivision thereof, or non-profit organization.
Note: Adopted September 10, 1984, to be effective immediately; amended June 28, 1996, to be effective September 1, 1996.
RPC 1.8. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients; Specific Rules
• (a) A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:
o (1) the transaction and terms in which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that can be understood by the client;
o (2) the client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel of the client’s choice concerning the transaction; and
o (3) the client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction, including whether the lawyer is representing the client in the transaction.
• (b) Except as permitted or required by these rules, a lawyer shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of the client unless the client after full disclosure and consultation, gives informed consent.
• (c) A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this paragraph, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative or individual with whom the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship.
• (d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a lawyer shall not make or negotiate an agreement giving the lawyer literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial part on information relating to the representation.
• (e) A lawyer shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or contemplated litigation, except that:
o (1) a lawyer may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may be contingent on the outcome of the matter; and
o (2) a lawyer representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of litigation on behalf of the client; and
o (3) a non-profit organization authorized under R. 1:21-1(e) may provide financial assistance to indigent clients whom it is representing without fee.
• (f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:
o (1) the client gives informed consent;
o (2) there is no interference with the lawyer’s independence of professional judgment or with the lawyer-client relationship; and
o (3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by RPC 1.6.
• (g) A lawyer who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate settlement of the claims of or against the clients, or in a criminal case an aggregated agreement as to guilty or no contest pleas, unless each client gives informed consent after a consultation that shall include disclosure of the existence and nature of all the claims or pleas involved and of the participation of each person in the settlement.
• (h) A lawyer shall not:
o (1) make an agreement prospectively limiting the lawyer’s liability to a client for malpractice unless the client fails to act in accordance with the lawyer’s advice and the lawyer nevertheless continues to represent the client at the client’s request. Notwithstanding the existence of those two conditions, the lawyer shall not make such an agreement unless permitted by law and the client is independently represented in making the agreement; or
o (2) settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advise of independent legal counsel in connection therewith.
• (i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the lawyer may: (1) acquire a lien granted by law to secure the lawyer’s fee or expenses, (2) contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case.
• (j) While lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the foregoing paragraphs (a) through (i) that applies to any one of them shall apply to all of them.
• (k) A lawyer employed by a public entity, either as a lawyer or in some other role, shall not undertake the representation of another client if the representation presents a substantial risk that the lawyer’s responsibilities to the public entity would limit the lawyer’s ability to provide independent advice or diligent and competent representation to either the public entity or the client.
• (l) A public entity cannot consent to a representation otherwise prohibited by this Rule.
Note: Adopted September 10, 1984 to be effective immediately; paragraph (e) amended July 12, 2002 to be effective September 3, 2002; caption amended, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) amended, former paragraph (i) deleted, former paragraph (j) redesignated as paragraph (i), former paragraph (k) deleted, and new paragraphs (j) , (k) and (l) added November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004.