## Facts

- Guy J. Lanza, a New Jersey attorney, was retained by Elizabeth F. Greene to represent her as the seller of a residence.
- A contract of sale between Greene and purchasers James and Joan Connolly was executed and delivered in Lanza’s office.
- Before fully discussing the additional representation with Greene, Lanza agreed to represent the Connollys as purchasers in the same transaction.
- The parties disputed whether Greene knew of and consented to Lanza’s dual representation when she signed the contract; Greene testified she learned later from a purchaser.
- At closing, the purchasers stated they were $1,000 short of the $36,000 purchase price and provided a postdated $1,000 check; Greene accepted and closing proceeded.
- When Greene later deposited the check, it was dishonored for insufficient funds; the purchasers refused to fund the account, claiming a $1,000 offset for alleged flooding repairs.
- Greene sought Lanza’s assistance to address the unpaid $1,000; the ethics committee found he did not act effectively for Greene after the dispute arose.
- The Bergen County Ethics Committee filed a presentment alleging Lanza violated DR 5-105 (conflicts in multiple representation).

## Issues

1. Whether Lanza’s simultaneous representation of seller and purchasers in the same residential real-estate transaction constituted a conflict prohibited by DR 5-105.
2. Whether Greene’s alleged knowledge and consent satisfied the disciplinary rule’s conditions for permissible multiple representation, including full disclosure and informed consent.
3. What discipline was appropriate for the conflict and its effect on the seller’s interests after the closing dispute emerged.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey found that Lanza violated DR 5-105 by undertaking dual representation of adverse interests without meeting the rule’s strict conditions.
- The Court accepted the ethics committee’s findings, including that Lanza agreed to represent the purchasers before properly addressing the additional representation with his original client.
- The Court concluded the $1,000 post-closing dispute illustrated the practical conflict created by the dual representation and the resulting impairment of loyalty to the seller.
- The Court imposed attorney discipline based on the established ethical violation.

## Legal Principles

- DR 5-105 bars representation of differing interests unless carefully limited conditions are met, including the lawyer’s reasonable belief in adequate representation for each client and full disclosure with informed consent by each affected client.
- Informed consent is not established where the lawyer undertakes representation of a second client in the same transaction before providing timely, meaningful disclosure to the first client.
- Dual representation in a buyer-seller real-estate closing carries a substantial risk that interests will diverge; when an actual dispute arises, the lawyer must not allow divided loyalty to impair action for either client.
- Customary convenience in transactional practice does not relax conflict rules; strict compliance with disclosure and consent requirements is required, and withdrawal may be necessary when conflict becomes actual.

## Conclusion

The court disciplined an attorney for representing both sides of a residential real-estate sale without timely, informed consent and for creating a conflict that materially compromised the seller’s interests when a post-closing payment dispute arose, in violation of DR 5-105.


In re Lanza, 65 N.J. 347, 322 A.2d 445 (1974)