In Re Simon, 20 A.3d 421

Simon represented Angel Jimenez in a murder case; Julio Sierra paid a $5,000 retainer, then another $5,000, under an agreement allowing termination for nonpayment.
Friend/relatives (the Sierras) attended many appearances; total fees exceeded $70,000 with only about $20,764 paid by 2008.
In 2007–2008, Sierra promised refinancing of property to pay fees; Simon continued to represent Jimenez based on that arrangement.
Simon notified of outstanding fees, sent invoices, and warned of withdrawal if payment not made; he sought relief as counsel after attempting to collect.
In July 2008 Simon filed a civil action for fees against Jimenez, his brother, and mother while Jimenez remained on trial; the trial judge later relieved Simon as counsel; a fee suit against the client followed, culminating in amendments seeking $86,961.25; arbitration later awarded about $55,020 but not clearly paid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does suing a current client create a conflict under RPC 1.7(a)(2)?	OAE: yes; it creates an impermissible conflict.	Simon: no per se conflict given pre-action notices and that he sought payment from related parties; he believed client would not pay.	Yes, it violated RPC 1.7(a)(2).
Is there a per se prohibition on suits against current clients, and should it be prospective only?	OAE: guidance is needed; rule should prohibit such suits.	Simon: actions complied with available procedures; rule should be prospective.	There is a general prohibition on suing a current client during active representation; rule is not limited to prospective application.
What discipline is appropriate for violating RPC 1.7(a)(2)?	DRB/SC: reasonably serious conflict warrants reprimand or greater.	Simon: admonition due to mitigating factors and long untarnished record.	Impose a reprimand; aggregate circumstances justify not imposing stricter discipline.

In re Berkowitz, 136 N.J. 134 (1994) (discusses standards for discipline in ethical misconduct involving conflicts)
Pellettieri, Rabstein, & Altman v. Protopapas, 383 N.J. Super. 142 (App. Div. 2006) (conflict and fee-collection considerations in ethics opinions)
In re McDermott, 142 N.J. 634 (1995) (precedent on discipline for conflicts in fee collection)
In re Loring, 62 N.J. 336 (1973) (early conflict-of-interest discipline guidance)
Jacobs v. Pendel, 98 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 1967) (limits on withdrawal and payment-related ethics considerations)
State v. Johnson, 274 N.J. Super. 137 (App. Div. 1994) (balancing factors in withdrawal and representation)
Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers, §7, (not a case, but cited as Restatement) (2000) (limits on remedies against present/former clients to avoid conflicts)