Atlas Septic Inc. v. Peter Christopher Gerhard, II
A-1112-24
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Atlas Septic Inc. and Robert Van Saders sought to disqualify the law firm Ansell, Grimm & Aaron (the "law firm") from representing Peter Christopher Gerhard, II and Dynamic Solutions Group, Inc. (DSG) in consolidated litigation.
- The law firm had previously represented Atlas and Van Saders in unrelated matters but later represented new clients (Gerhard and DSG) adverse to their former clients (Atlas and Van Saders) in new, consolidated lawsuits.
- Atlas and Van Saders filed a motion to disqualify the law firm based on alleged violations of New Jersey Rule of Professional Conduct (RPC) 1.9, arguing that confidential information from prior representation could be used against them.
- The trial judge reviewed an ex parte, in camera certification from Van Saders without providing the law firm an opportunity to review or challenge it, and based the decision to order disqualification on this review.
- On appeal, Gerhard and DSG claimed a due process violation and asserted the trial court erred in both substance and procedure by disqualifying their counsel on an inadequate record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| In camera review of certification | Needed to protect confidential info | Procedural due process violation; ex parte | Reviewing in camera without opposition was improper |
| Similarity of prior and current cases | Prior cases are substantially related | Prior cases are unrelated; no overlap | Judge did not find sufficient similarity |
| Use of confidential information | Law firm could use confidential info | Information is stale or irrelevant | Record did not support actual use of info |
| Basis for disqualification under RPC | Both (a) and (c) justify removal | (c) not an independent basis for removal | RPC 1.9(c) alone does not justify disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Atlantic City v. Trupos, 201 N.J. 447 (discussing standards for attorney disqualification under RPC 1.9)
- O Builders & Assocs., Inc. v. Yuna Corp. of NJ, 206 N.J. 109 (outlining necessity for evidentiary hearings in disqualification motions)
- Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 109 N.J. 201 (setting procedural requirements and standards for disqualification)
- Dental Health Assocs. S. Jersey, P.A. v. RRI Gibbsboro, LLC, 471 N.J. Super. 184 (disqualification motions should be granted sparingly and analyzed thoroughly)