The New Jersey Supreme Court’s disciplinary action against attorney Clifford R. Lundin provides a compelling look into the serious consequences of ethical misconduct. In a 2020 decision (In re Clifford R. Lundin, 243 N.J. 509), Lundin was censured for a series of violations, including using his public office for private gain, making misrepresentations to his employer, and failing to cooperate with the investigation. This case highlights several critical ethical rules for attorneys, particularly those who hold positions in public service. This blog post will examine the details of the Lundin case and the important lessons it offers for the legal community.
In re Clifford R. Lundin, 243 N.J. 509 (2020).
Clifford R. Lundin, an attorney in New Jersey, was censured by the Supreme Court of New Jersey for multiple ethics violations. The disciplinary action stemmed from a formal ethics complaint filed by the Office of Attorney Ethics (OAE). The investigation, which began in 2015, found that between September 2009 and January 2017, Lundin used his public office and resources as District Manager and General Counsel for the Sussex County Soil Conservation District Board to conduct his private law practice during business hours. This was in violation of the terms of his employment, which only permitted private legal work outside of District hours.
Lundin also made false statements on certified outside activity forms, claiming his private practice did not involve contact with state agencies or work for District officials. However, records showed he represented private clients before various state agencies and also provided legal services to three District Board members. These misrepresentations led to charges of engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Furthermore, Lundin failed to cooperate with the OAE’s investigation and did not respond to the formal ethics complaint. As a result, the matter proceeded as a default. The court also determined that Lundin violated RPC by committing a criminal act that reflects negatively on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.
The Disciplinary Review Board recommended a censure, noting Lundin’s lack of prior disciplinary history as a mitigating factor. However, one board member dissented, advocating for a three-month suspension. The court ordered that Lundin reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for administrative costs and that the entire record of the matter be made a permanent part of his attorney file.
The Disciplinary Review Board’s decision, which the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed, detailed the specific rules of professional conduct (RPCs) Lundin violated. In addition to those previously mentioned, he was also found to have violated:
- This rule concerns concurrent conflicts of interest. Lundin was found to have engaged in two instances of this by representing private clients before state agencies, which could have created a conflict with his duties to the Sussex County Soil Conservation District Board.
- This rule applies specifically to lawyers employed by public entities. Lundin’s private work was found to have presented a “substantial risk” that his responsibilities to the public entity would limit his ability to provide independent advice to either the public entity or his private clients.
The case underscores the importance of maintaining public trust in the legal profession. As a public official and an attorney, Lundin had a dual responsibility to uphold high ethical standards. His actions, which involved using his public office for private gain and making misrepresentations, eroded that trust. The disciplinary action serves as a public statement that such conduct is unacceptable.
The censure serves as a deterrent to other attorneys who might consider similar conduct. While not as severe as disbarment or suspension, a censure is a formal public reprimand that permanently stains an attorney’s professional record. It serves as a reminder that even seemingly minor ethical lapses can lead to significant professional consequences.
Want more legal ethics breakdown like this?
Subscribe to our blog or follow us for weekly case summaries, rules analyses, and disciplinary updates