## Facts

- Lee B. Roth was a licensed New Jersey attorney, admitted to practice in 1962, and he did not hold a New Jersey real-estate broker’s license.
- Roth agreed to help his paralegal purchase a home for less than the listed price while also serving as her lawyer in the transaction.
- The paralegal agreed to pay Roth a legal fee and also agreed that the sale contract would describe Roth as the seller’s broker, entitling him to a share of the listing broker’s commission.
- Roth’s plan was to take his share of the commission and pass it to the paralegal to reduce her overall purchase costs.
- The property was listed through broker Carl D. Bayuk, who initially agreed to split the commission with Roth.
- After the house was sold to another buyer for a higher price than Roth’s client offered, Bayuk filed an ethics grievance against Roth based on Roth’s attempt to obtain a brokerage commission in a deal where he was also acting as the buyer’s lawyer.
- The District XIII Ethics Committee found Roth violated Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102(A)(6), which prohibited a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on fitness to practice law.
- The Disciplinary Review Board affirmed and recommended that the New Jersey Supreme Court impose discipline, specifically a public reprimand.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reviewed the matter as part of its constitutional authority over attorney discipline and requested amicus input from the New Jersey Real Estate Commission and the New Jersey State Bar Association regarding attorney-broker conduct in the same transaction.

## Issues

1. Does an attorney violate DR 1-102(A)(6) by seeking a real-estate broker’s commission in a residential real-estate transaction in which the attorney also represents the buyer as legal counsel?
2. What ethics standards govern an attorney who attempts to serve as both attorney and real-estate broker in the same transaction, including conflict and appearance concerns?
3. May an attorney who lacks a broker’s license properly seek or receive a brokerage commission connected to the transaction?
4. If misconduct is proven by clear and convincing evidence, what discipline is appropriate?

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that Roth’s conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(6) because his attempt to obtain a real-estate commission in a matter where he also acted as counsel adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law.
- The Court accepted the disciplinary authorities’ conclusions that the arrangement created unacceptable risks of conflicted loyalty and an improper appearance, even though Roth claimed he intended to transfer the commission proceeds to his client.
- The Court agreed that Roth, not being a licensed real-estate broker, was not entitled to seek a broker’s commission.
- The Court imposed discipline consistent with the Disciplinary Review Board’s recommendation: a public reprimand.
- The Court used the case to provide guidance on the ethics limits for lawyers who attempt to combine legal representation and brokerage activity in a single real-estate deal.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may be disciplined for conduct outside courtroom advocacy when the conduct adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law. (DR 1-102(A)(6))
- When a lawyer’s compensation structure introduces a personal financial stake in closing a deal (such as a brokerage commission), that stake can conflict with the lawyer’s duty to provide independent legal advice to the client.
- A lawyer’s stated intention to pass a commission to the client does not, by itself, eliminate conflict and appearance problems created by the lawyer seeking a commission tied to the transaction.
- A lawyer cannot treat a law license as a substitute for compliance with real-estate broker licensing rules when seeking broker-type compensation.
- In attorney discipline matters, the New Jersey Supreme Court exercises final authority over sanctions and may rely on the factual findings and recommendations of ethics committees and the Disciplinary Review Board when supported by clear and convincing evidence.

## Conclusion

In *In re Roth*, the New Jersey Supreme Court publicly reprimanded an attorney who attempted to obtain a real-estate broker’s commission in a residential purchase while also representing the buyer as legal counsel, holding that the commission-seeking arrangement—especially without a broker’s license—created conflict and appearance problems that violated DR 1-102(A)(6).


In re Roth, 577 A.2d 490 (1990)