VAN HORN V. VAN HORN A-6553-06T3 07-23-10
We reversed an order disqualifying counsel over her
client's objection for violating Rule 5:3-5(b) by taking a postjudgment
mortgage on her client's real estate while her
representation of her client continued during the time for
appeal by virtue of Rule 1:11-3. We held that disqualification
of counsel was not an available remedy for a violation of Rule
5:3-5(b). At most, the Family Part judge could have invalidated
the transaction. We did not require same because the direct
appeal has been decided and the evil sought to be prevented by
Rule 5:3-5(b) no longer exists.
