In the Matter of the Estate of Agueda Medeiros Mesce
A-3454-23
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Mar 21, 2025Background
- The case concerns the contested probate of the October 2022 will of Agueda Medeiros Mesce, whose estate exceeds $4 million.
- Appellants (Frank and Vally Cicerale) and respondents (Janis Knoll and Joseph Karn, among others) are potential beneficiaries under competing wills.
- Respondents, who were named in an earlier will (August 2018), moved to invalidate the later October 2022 will, alleging undue influence.
- Prior to lawsuit filing, respondents Knoll and Karn consulted attorney Geoffrey Mueller about the estate, sharing confidential information but ultimately did not retain him.
- Mueller later represented the appellants (Cicerales) in the same estate dispute, without respondents' consent.
- The trial court disqualified Mueller as appellants’ counsel for alleged conflict of interest under RPC 1.18; the appellate division vacated that decision and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disqualification of counsel under RPC 1.18 | Respondents: Shared confidential info with Mueller | Appellants: No substantive conflict or harmful info | Vacated; trial court did not perform fact-sensitive analysis |
| Whether information disclosed was "significantly harmful" | Yes: Shared settlement positions and strategies | No: Disclosures were not prejudicial or specific | Not established; emails did not prove significant harm |
| Adequacy of procedures for in camera review of confidential materials | Yes: General content described, sufficient process | No: Required procedures under Rule 4:10-2(e) not followed | Agreed with appellants; procedures were inadequate |
| Application of Greebel v. Lensak factors (relatedness, harm) | Both prongs satisfied | Neither prong satisfied | Trial court failed to make thorough factual findings |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Atl. City v. Trupos, 201 N.J. 447 (de novo standard for review of disqualification)
- O Builders & Assocs., Inc. v. Yuna Corp. of N.J., 206 N.J. 109 (confidential information from prospective clients requires fact-sensitive inquiry)
- Greebel v. Lensak, 467 N.J. Super. 251 (two-part test for attorney disqualification under RPC 1.18)
- Cavallaro v. Jamco Prop. Mgmt., 334 N.J. Super. 557 (disqualification is a harsh, sparingly used remedy)
- Twenty-First Century Rail Corp. v. N.J. Transit Corp., 210 N.J. 264 (balancing right to counsel of choice vs. ethical requirements)
- Dewey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 109 N.J. 201 (priority of maintaining standards over right to chosen counsel)